Federal Register Vol. 82, No.163,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 163 (August 24, 2017)

Page Range40067-40460
FR Document

82_FR_163
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 40471 - National Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week, 2017PDF
82 FR 40463 - Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure ProjectsPDF
82 FR 40138 - Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 40136 - Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India and Italy: Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
82 FR 40169 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 40166 - Meeting of the DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 40134 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; the Reporting Process for Complaint of Employment Discrimination Used by Permanent Employees and Applicants for Employment at the Department of CommercePDF
82 FR 40136 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Report From Foreign-Trade ZonesPDF
82 FR 40140 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Participant Application, Participant Exit Questionnaire, Alumni Success Story ReportPDF
82 FR 40135 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 40135 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; the Reporting Process for Complaint of Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Against the Department of CommercePDF
82 FR 40171 - Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board MembersPDF
82 FR 40134 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 40075 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 37; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 40168 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
82 FR 40077 - Animal Welfare; Procedures for Applying for Licenses and RenewalsPDF
82 FR 40130 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 40151 - PE Hydro Generation, LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental AssessmentPDF
82 FR 40151 - Notice of Filing; Bonneville Power AdministrationPDF
82 FR 40163 - Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 40069 - Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Seventh Coast Guard DistrictPDF
82 FR 40069 - Special Local Regulation; Southern California Annual Marine Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone-San Diego BayfairPDF
82 FR 40075 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2017 Recreational and Commercial Closures for the Florida Keys/East Florida Stock of Hogfish in the South Atlantic and Gulf of MexicoPDF
82 FR 40173 - Notice of Extension of Call for Nominations for the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of IsotopesPDF
82 FR 40146 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Part 15 NegotiationPDF
82 FR 40149 - Woodland Pulp LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To IntervenePDF
82 FR 40148 - Sendero Carlsbad NGL, LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary WaiverPDF
82 FR 40152 - Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of AmendmentPDF
82 FR 40081 - Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System-Primary Frequency Response: Notice of Request for Supplemental CommentsPDF
82 FR 40151 - Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fairburn Expansion ProjectPDF
82 FR 40150 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 40148 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 40145 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; TransportationPDF
82 FR 40144 - Management Plan for South Slough, Oregon National Estuarine Research ReservePDF
82 FR 40144 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 40143 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 40221 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
82 FR 40154 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 40141 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Testing and Training Activities Conducted in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training RangePDF
82 FR 40215 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
82 FR 40158 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 40173 - Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials Outside Reactor CoresPDF
82 FR 40070 - Safety Zone; Village of Sodus Point Fireworks; Lake Ontario, Sodus Point, NYPDF
82 FR 40144 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21486PDF
82 FR 40213 - Initiation of Section 301 Investigation; Hearing; and Request for Public Comments: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and InnovationPDF
82 FR 40171 - Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 40172 - Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 40171 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 40161 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) Program Deeming Applications for Health Center Volunteer Health Professionals, OMB No. 0906-XXXX, NewPDF
82 FR 40231 - Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War, Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 40231 - Agency Information Collection Activity: NVSBE Post Engagement SurveyPDF
82 FR 40170 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 40183 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Provide for the Listing of Companies That List Without a Prior Exchange Act Registration and That Are Not Listing in Connection With an Underwritten Initial Public Offering and Related Changes to Rules 15, 104, and 123DPDF
82 FR 40187 - Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Order Scheduling Filing of Statements on Review in the Matter of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. for an Order Granting the Approval of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Acquisition of CHX Holdings, Inc. by North America Casin Holdings, Inc. (File No. SR-CHX-2016-20)PDF
82 FR 40178 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Generic Listing Criteria Applicable to Equity Index-Linked SecuritiesPDF
82 FR 40159 - Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 40157 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 40212 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of KentuckyPDF
82 FR 40212 - Administrative Declaration Amendment of Disaster for the State of CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 40176 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend and Clarify a Margin Charge Relating to CNS Fails PositionPDF
82 FR 40181 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Capital Acquisition Broker Rules 203 (Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities With Government Entities) and 458 (Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities)PDF
82 FR 40202 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce Bats Market Close, a Closing Match Process for Non-BZX Listed Securities Under New Exchange Rule 11.28PDF
82 FR 40188 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Quoting at the OpeningPDF
82 FR 40190 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Quoting at the OpeningPDF
82 FR 40197 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Quoting at the OpeningPDF
82 FR 40199 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Consisting of Proposed Amendments to MSRB Rule G-21(e), on Municipal Fund Security Product AdvertisementsPDF
82 FR 40193 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Create the Market Access and Routing Subsidy ProgramPDF
82 FR 40147 - Environmental Management Advisory BoardPDF
82 FR 40118 - Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data ProgramPDF
82 FR 40212 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of VermontPDF
82 FR 40229 - Art Advisory Panel-Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 40230 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2017-41 (Modifying Rev. Proc. 2015-36) Master and Prototype and Volume Submitter Plans (Previously Rev. Proc. 2011-49 & 2005-16)PDF
82 FR 40228 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1024-APDF
82 FR 40229 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8838-PPDF
82 FR 40175 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 40153 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 40162 - National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 40162 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 40153 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 40163 - Public Workshop on Marine Technology and StandardsPDF
82 FR 40176 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 40133 - Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 40174 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 40168 - Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet From Japan; Notice of Commission Determination To Conduct a Full Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 40160 - Notice of Supplemental Awards to the Territorial Health Departments of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands for the Zika Maternal and Child Health Services ProgramPDF
82 FR 40155 - National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
82 FR 40175 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 40131 - Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Citrus Black SpotPDF
82 FR 40132 - Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Systems Approach for the Interstate Movement of Fresh, Mature Kaffir Lime, Curry, and Bael Leaves for Consumption From Areas Quarantined for Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus PsyllidPDF
82 FR 40130 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fruits and VegetablesPDF
82 FR 40085 - Use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for Domestic, Municipal & Industrial Water SupplyPDF
82 FR 40164 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 40080 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Burlington, WIPDF
82 FR 40078 - Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Burns Flat, OK; Revocation of Class D Airspace; Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and Amendment of E Airspace for the Following Oklahoma Towns: Burns Flat, OK; Clinton, OK; and Elk City, OKPDF
82 FR 40067 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Mosinee, WIPDF
82 FR 40067 - Airspace Designations; Incorporation by ReferencePDF
82 FR 40086 - Approval of Iowa's Air Quality Implementation Plan; Muscatine Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment AreaPDF
82 FR 40169 - Proposed Renewal of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 40103 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic ResinsPDF
82 FR 40085 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD Replacement UnitsPDF
82 FR 40072 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD Replacement UnitsPDF
82 FR 40343 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
82 FR 40347 - Spring 2017 Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40355 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
82 FR 40313 - Semiannual Agenda of RegulationsPDF
82 FR 40342 - Semiannual AgendaPDF
82 FR 40360 - Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40361 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40367 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40319 - Department Regulatory Agenda; Semiannual SummaryPDF
82 FR 40460 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40451 - Regulatory Flexibility AgendaPDF
82 FR 40437 - Semiannual Agenda of RegulationsPDF
82 FR 40447 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
82 FR 40443 - Semiannual Regulatory Flexibility AgendaPDF
82 FR 40381 - Regulatory Flexibility AgendaPDF
82 FR 40385 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40391 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40397 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Spring 2017PDF
82 FR 40312 - Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40305 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40301 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40289 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
82 FR 40277 - Regulatory AgendaPDF
82 FR 40269 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
82 FR 40261 - Improving Government Regulations; Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
82 FR 40247 - Spring 2017 Semiannual Agenda of RegulationsPDF
82 FR 40239 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, Spring 2017PDF
82 FR 40233 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF

Issue

82 163 Thursday, August 24, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40240-40245 2017-16886 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40130 2017-17966
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Animal Welfare: Procedures for Applying for Licenses and Renewals, 40077-40078 2017-17967 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Citrus Black Spot, 40131-40132 2017-17877 Importation of Fruits and Vegetables, 40130-40131 2017-17875 Systems Approach for Interstate Movement of Fresh, Mature Kaffir Lime, Curry, and Bael Leaves for Consumption from Areas Quarantined for Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid, 40132-40133 2017-17876 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40344-40345 2017-17064 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40386-40389 2017-16984 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40157-40158 2017-17918 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Grant Reviewer Recruitment, 40158-40159 2017-17935 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Village of Sodus Point Fireworks; Lake Ontario, Sodus Point, NY, 40070-40072 2017-17933 Special Local Regulation: Southern California Annual Marine Events for San Diego Captain of the Port Zone—San Diego Bayfair, 40069-40070 2017-17959 Special Local Regulations: Marine Events Within Seventh Coast Guard District, 40069 2017-17962 NOTICES Meetings: Public Workshop on Marine Technology and Standards; Correction, 40163-40164 2017-17889 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40248-40260 2017-16888 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40134 2017-17972 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reporting Process for Complaint of Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Against Department of Commerce, 40135 2017-17974 Reporting Process for Complaint of Employment Discrimination Used by Permanent Employees and Applicants for Employment at Department of Commerce, 40134-40135 2017-17979
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40382-40383 2017-16987 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40392-40396 2017-16982 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Part 15 Negotiation, 40146-40147 2017-17956 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Transportation, 40145-40146 2017-17948 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

See

Engineers Corps

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40262-40268, 40368-40379 2017-16889 2017-17028
Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40270-40275 2017-16919 NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Advisory Board, 40147-40148 2017-17902
Engineers Engineers Corps PROPOSED RULES Use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for Domestic, Municipal and Industrial Water Supply, 40085 2017-17779 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Replacement Units, 40072-40075 2017-17342 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama: PSD Replacement Units, 40085-40086 2017-17343 Iowa; Muscatine Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, 40086-40103 2017-17736 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins, 40103-40118 2017-17514 Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40348-40354 2017-17063 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airspace Designations; Incorporation by Reference, 40067-40069 2017-17750 Class D and E Airspace; Amendments: Mosinee, WI, 40067 2017-17751 PROPOSED RULES Class D Airspace, Establishments and Revocations; Class E Airspace, Amendments: Burns Flat, Clinton, and Elk City, OK, 40078-40080 2017-17753 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Burlington, WI, 40080-40081 2017-17755 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Modernizing FCC Data Program, 40118-40129 2017-17901 Regulatory Agenda Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40398-40436 2017-16981 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40438-40442 2017-17016 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 40164-40166 2017-17761 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Essential Reliability Services and Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, 40081-40085 2017-17952 NOTICES Combined Filings, 40148, 40150 2017-17949 2017-17950 Declaratory Order Petitions: Woodland Pulp, LLC, 40149-40150 2017-17955 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: PE Hydro Generation, LLC, 40151 2017-17965 Southern Natural Gas Co., LLC; Fairburn Expansion Project, 40151-40152 2017-17951 Filings: Bonneville Power Administration, 40151 2017-17964 Petitions: Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, LLC, 40152-40153 2017-17953 Temporary Waivers: Sendero Carlsbad NGL, LLC, 40148-40149 2017-17954 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 40215-40228 2017-17937 2017-17941 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40444-40445 2017-17013 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40154-40155 2017-17939 Change in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 40153-40154 2017-17893 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 40153 2017-17890 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc., 40155-40157 2017-17880 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Identifying Trading Partners Under Drug Supply Chain Security Act, 40159-40160 2017-17919 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40356-40357, 40368-40379 2017-17028 2017-17062 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40133-40134 2017-17887 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40278-40287 2017-16920
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Tort Claims Act Program Deeming Applications for Health Center Volunteer Health Professionals, 40161-40162 2017-17926 Supplemental Grant Awards: Territorial Health Departments of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands for Zika Maternal and Child Health Services Program, 40160-40161 2017-17883 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40290-40299 2017-16921 NOTICES Meetings: Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, 40166-40167 2017-17980
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40302-40303 2017-16922 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40135-40136 2017-17975 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Report from Foreign-Trade Zones, 40136 2017-17978 Interior Interior Department PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40306-40309 2017-16923 Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40228-40230 2017-17896 2017-17897 2017-17898 Meetings: Art Advisory Panel, 40229 2017-17899 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Participant Application, Participant Exit Questionnaire, Alumni Success Story Report, 40140-40141 2017-17976 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India, 40138-40140 2017-18057 Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India and Italy, 40136-40138 2017-18056 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 40168-40169 2017-17969 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet From Japan, 40168 2017-17884 Justice Department Justice Department PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40312 2017-16934 Labor Department Labor Department See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40314-40317 2017-17060
Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40169-40170 2017-18023 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40360, 40368-40379 2017-17028 2017-17030 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 40170-40171 2017-17923 National Capital National Capital Planning Commission NOTICES Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board Members, 40171 2017-17973 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 40162-40163 2017-17891 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 40162 2017-17892 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery of South Atlantic Region; Amendment 37; Correction, 40075 2017-17970 Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic: 2017 Recreational and Commercial Closures for Florida Keys/East Florida Stock of Hogfish in South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, 40075-40076 2017-17958 NOTICES Management Plan for South Slough, Oregon National Estuarine Research Reserve, 40144-40145 2017-17946 Meetings: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 40144 2017-17944 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 40143-40144 2017-17943 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 21486, 40144 2017-17932 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals Incidental to Specific Activities: Testing and Training Activities Conducted in Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range, 40141-40143 2017-17938 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee, 40171 2017-17930 Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering, 40172-40173 2017-17928 2017-17929 Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research, 40171-40172 2017-17927 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40448-40450 2017-17015 NOTICES Guides: Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials Outside Reactor Cores, 40173-40174 2017-17934 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes, 40173 2017-17957 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 40174-40175 2017-17885 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 40175 2017-17879 Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 40175 2017-17881 2017-17894 2017-17895 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 40176 2017-17888 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week (Proc. 9630), 40471-40472 2017-18142 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Infrastructure Projects, Environmental Review and Permitting Process; Efforts To Establish Discipline and Accountability (EO 13807), 40461-40469 2017-18134 Regulatory Regulatory Information Service Center PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40234-40238 2017-16859 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40452-40457 2017-17017 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 40202-40212 2017-17909 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 40187-40188 2017-17921 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 40181-40183 2017-17910 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 40199-40202 2017-17905 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 40188-40190, 40193-40196 2017-17904 2017-17908 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 40190-40193 2017-17907 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 40197-40199 2017-17906 National Securities Clearing Corp., 40176-40178 2017-17911 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 40183-40187 2017-17922 NYSE Arca, Inc., 40178-40180 2017-17920 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40362-40366 2017-17029 NOTICES Disaster Declarations: California, 40212-40213 2017-17915 Kentucky, 40212 2017-17917 Vermont, 40212 2017-17900 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 40163 2017-17963 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40460 2017-17023 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Hearings: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 40213-40215 2017-17931 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40320-40339 2017-17027
Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 40342 2017-17059
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Veteran Small Business Engagement Post Engagement Survey, 40231 2017-17924 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War, 40231 2017-17925 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40169 2017-17525 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Regulatory Information Service Center, 40234-40238 2017-16859 Part III Agriculture Department, 40240-40245 2017-16886 Part IV Commerce Department, 40248-40260 2017-16888 Part V Defense Department, 40262-40268 2017-16889 Part VI Energy Department, 40270-40275 2017-16919 Part VII Health and Human Services Department, 40278-40287 2017-16920 Part VIII Homeland Security Department, 40290-40299 2017-16921 Part IX Housing and Urban Development Department, 40302-40303 2017-16922 Part X Interior Department, 40306-40309 2017-16923 Part XI Justice Department, 40312 2017-16934 Part XII Labor Department, 40314-40317 2017-17060 Part XIII Transportation Department, 40320-40339 2017-17027 Part XIV Treasury Department, 40342 2017-17059 Part XV Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 40344-40345 2017-17064 Part XVI Environmental Protection Agency, 40348-40354 2017-17063 Part XVII General Services Administration, 40356-40357 2017-17062 Part XVIII National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 40360 2017-17030 Part XIX Small Business Administration, 40362-40366 2017-17029 Part XX Defense Department, 40368-40379 2017-17028 General Services Administration, 40368-40379 2017-17028 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 40368-40379 2017-17028 Part XXI Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 40382-40383 2017-16987 Part XXII Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 40386-40389 2017-16984 Part XXIII Consumer Product Safety Commission, 40392-40396 2017-16982 Part XXIV Federal Communications Commission, 40398-40436 2017-16981 Part XXV Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 40362-40366 2017-17029 Part XXVI Federal Reserve System, 40444-40445 2017-17013 Part XXVII Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 40448-40450 2017-17015 Part XXVIII Securities and Exchange Commission, 40452-40457 2017-17017 Part XXIX Surface Transportation Board, 40460 2017-17023 Part XXX Presidential Documents, 40461-40469, 40471-40472 2017-18134 2017-18142 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.

82 163 Thursday, August 24, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0355; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-12] Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Mosinee, WI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, correction.

SUMMARY:

This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal Register of August 3, 2017 that modifies Class D and E airspace at Central Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. The FAA identified that, in the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, the Wausau VORTAC was not removed as a result of the decommissioning of the Mosinee outer marker (OM) and DANCI locator outer marker (LOM) and cancellation of the associated approaches.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, August 24, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 36078, August 3, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0355, modifying Class D airspace and Class E airspace at Central Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI.

Subsequent to publication, The FAA found that the Wausau VORTAC was inadvertently left in the airspace description in Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. The segment that contained the Mosinee outer marker and DANCI locator outer marker, associated with the VORTAC, has been removed due to the decommissioning of these navigation aids and, therefore, removes the need for the Wausau VORTAC. This action makes the correction.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

Correction to Final Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of August 3, 2017 (82 FR 36078) FR Doc. 2017-16284, Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Mosinee, WI, is corrected as follows:

§ 71.1 [Amended]
AGL WI E5 Mosinee, WI [Corrected]

On page 36080, column 1, on lines 36 and 37, remove the following text:

Wausau VORTAC (Lat. 44°50′49″ N., long. 89°35′12″ W.)
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 15, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-17751 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0798; Amendment No. 71-49] Airspace Designations; Incorporation by Reference AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 relating to airspace designations to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. This action also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points incorporated by reference.

DATES:

These regulations are effective September 15, 2017, through September 15, 2018. The incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11B is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2017, through September 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

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

Sarah A. Combs, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, effective September 15, 2016, listed Class A, B, C, D and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points. Due to the length of these descriptions, the FAA requested approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate the material by reference in the Federal Aviation Regulations section 71.1, effective September 15, 2016, through September 15, 2017. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA processed all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.11A in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register. Likewise, all amendments of these listings were published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register. This rule reflects the periodic integration of these final rule amendments into a revised edition of Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. The Director of the Federal Register has approved the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11B in section 71.1, as of September 15, 2017, through September 15, 2018. This rule also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the airspace designations incorporated by reference in part 71. Sections 71.5, 71.15, 71.31, 71.33, 71.41, 71.51, 71.61, 71.71, and 71.901 are also updated to reflect the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11B.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document incorporates by reference FAA Order 7400.11B, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, in section 71.1. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11B, effective September 15, 2017, through September 15, 2018. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA will continue to process all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.11B in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register. Likewise, all amendments of these listings will be published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register. The FAA will periodically integrate all final rule amendments into a revised edition of the Order, and submit the revised edition to the Director of the Federal Register for approval for incorporation by reference in section 71.1.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this action: (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. This action neither places any new restrictions or requirements on the public, nor changes the dimensions or operation requirements of the airspace listings incorporated by reference in part 71.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 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.

2. Section 71.1 is revised to read as follows:
§ 71.1 Applicability.

A listing for Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points can be found in FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR part 51. The approval to incorporate by reference FAA Order 7400.11B is effective September 15, 2017, through September 15, 2018. During the incorporation by reference period, proposed changes to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register. Amendments to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register. Periodically, the final rule amendments will be integrated into a revised edition of the Order and submitted to the Director of the Federal Register for approval for incorporation by reference in this section. Copies of FAA Order 7400.11B may be obtained from Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-8783. An electronic version of the Order is available on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications. Copies of FAA Order 7400.11B may be inspected in Docket No. FAA-2017-0798 Amendment No. 71-49 on http://www.regulations.gov. A copy of FAA Order 7400.11B may be inspected at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

§ 71.5 [Amended]
3. Section 71.5 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.11A” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11B.”
§ 71.15 [Amended]
4. Section 71.15 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.11A” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11B.”
§ 71.31 [Amended]
5. Section 71.31 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.11A” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11B.”
§ 71.33 [Amended]
6. Paragraph (c) of section 71.33 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.11A” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11B.”
§ 71.41 [Amended]
7. Section 71.41 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.11A” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11B.”
§ 71.51 [Amended]
8. Section 71.51 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.11A” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11B.”
§ 71.61 [Amended]
9. Section 71.61 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.11A” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11B.”
§ 71.71 [Amended]
10. Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of section 71.71 are amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.11A” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11B.”
§ 71.901 [Amended]
11. Paragraph (a) of section 71.901 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.11A” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11B.” Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 2017. Rodger A. Dean Jr., Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2017-17750 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0760] Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Seventh Coast Guard District AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Ironman Triathlon in Augusta, Georgia on 24 September 2017, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Augusta, GA. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to § 100.701(f), Line No. 3, will be enforced on September 24, 2017 from 6 a.m. until 12 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST2 Adam White, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Office of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 912-652-4353, extension 233, or email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to § 100.701(f), COTP Zone Savannah; Special Local Regulations, Line no. 3, from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. on September 24, 2017 for the Ironman Triathlon. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District, § 100.701, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Ironman Triathlon which encompasses portions of the Savannah River and its branches. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.100(c), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Security Bulletins, and on-scene designated representatives.

Dated: August 18, 2017. N.C. Witt, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Savannah.
[FR Doc. 2017-17962 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0763] Special Local Regulation; Southern California Annual Marine Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone—San Diego Bayfair AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the San Diego Bayfair special local regulations on the waters of Mission Bay, California from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from September 15, 2017, to September 17, 2017. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 12, will be enforced from 7 a.m. September 15, 2017, through 6 p.m. September 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this publication of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Briana Biagas, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7656, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations for the San Diego Bayfair race event in Mission Bay, CA in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 12, of that section from 7 a.m. on September 15, 2017 until 6 p.m. September 17, 2017. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the race. The Coast Guard's regulation for recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 33 CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

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

Dated: August 9, 2017. J.R. Buzzella, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2017-17959 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0718] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Village of Sodus Point Fireworks; Lake Ontario, Sodus Point, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Ontario, Sodus Point, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Lake Ontario during the Village of Sodus Point Fireworks display on September 2, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0718 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

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

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone on September 2, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario; Sodus Point, NY contained within 560-foot radius of: 43°16′33″ N., 076°58′27″ W. (NAD 83).

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

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

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

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

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

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

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0718 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0718 Safety Zone; Village of Sodus Point Fireworks; Lake Ontario, Sodus Point, NY.

(a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario; Sodus Point, NY contained within a 560-foot radius of: 43°16′33″ N., 076°58′27″ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced on September 2, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.

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

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

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

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

Dated: August 17, 2017. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-17933 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0371; FRL-9966-47-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD Replacement Units AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), on May 7, 2012. The portion of the revision that EPA is approving relates to the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations. In particular, the revision adds a definition of “replacement unit” and provides that a replacement unit is a type of existing emissions unit under the definition of “emissions unit.” This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective October 23, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 25, 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-2017-0371 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:

Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-8966 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is the Agency taking?

On May 7, 2012, ADEM submitted a SIP revision for EPA's approval that includes, among other things, changes to Alabama's PSD permitting regulations as part of the State's New Source Review (NSR) permitting program.1 The NSR program, established in parts C and D of title I of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR 52.21, is a preconstruction review and permitting program applicable to new major stationary sources of regulated NSR pollutants and major modifications at existing major stationary sources. A major modification is defined as any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result in a significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant and a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant from the major stationary source. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), 51.166(b)(2)(i), and 52.21(b)(2)(i).

1 EPA's regulations governing the implementation of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.160—51.166; 52.21, 52.24; and part 51, appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed of three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that meet the 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 in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment areas.” The Minor NSR program addresses construction or modification activities that do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. Together, these programs are referred to as the NSR programs.

In this document, EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of this submittal that make changes to ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-3-14-.04—“Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas [Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD)].” Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP submittal changes the PSD regulations at Rule 335-3-14-.04 by adding a definition of “replacement unit” and by modifying the definition of “emissions unit” to expressly include replacement units as existing emissions units. As revised in the May 5, 2017, withdrawal letter discussed in Section III, below, these changes are similar to those made to the Federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(7) and (33) in the rule titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration” See 68 FR 63021 (November 7, 2003) (hereinafter referred to as the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule).

EPA is not taking action on the portions of Alabama's May 7, 2012, submittal regarding ADEM Administrative Code Chapter 335-3-10—“Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,” and Chapter 335-3-11—“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” In the submittal, Alabama acknowledges that these regulations are not part of Alabama's SIP and states that the “revisions to these [regulations] are not proposed to be incorporated into Alabama's SIP.”

II. Background A. NSR Reform

On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule revisions to the CAA's PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs. See 67 FR 80186 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 NSR Rule). The revisions included several major changes to the NSR program, including the addition of an actual-to-projected-actual emissions test for determining NSR applicability for existing emissions units.

Following publication, EPA received numerous petitions requesting reconsideration of several aspects of the final rule. On July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44624), EPA granted reconsideration on six issues, including whether replacement units should be allowed to use the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test to determine whether installing a replacement unit results in a significant emissions increase. On November 7, 2003, EPA published the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule. See 68 FR 63021. In the reconsideration rule, EPA continued to allow the owner or operator of a major stationary source to use the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test to determine whether installing a replacement unit results in a significant emissions increase. EPA also modified the rules by: (1) Adding a definition of “replacement unit,” and (2) revising the definition of “emissions unit” to clarify that a replacement unit is considered an existing emissions unit and therefore is eligible for the actual-to-projected-actual test for major NSR applicability determinations. The 2002 NSR Rule and the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules.”

B. Equipment Replacement Provision

Under Federal regulations, certain activities are not considered to be a physical change or a change in the method of operation at a source, and thus do not trigger NSR review. One category of such activities is routine maintenance, repair and replacement (RMRR). On October 27, 2003, EPA published a rule titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion” (hereinafter referred to as the ERP Rule). See 68 FR 61248. The ERP Rule provided criteria for determining whether an activity falls within the RMRR exemption. The ERP Rule provided a list of equipment replacement activities that are exempt from NSR permitting requirements, while ensuring that industries maintain safe, reliable, and efficient operations that will have little or no impact on emissions. Under the ERP Rule, a facility undergoing equipment replacement would not be required to undergo NSR review if the facility replaced any component of a process unit with an identical or functionally equivalent component. The rule included several modifications to the NSR rules to explain what would qualify as an identical or functionally equivalent component.

Shortly after the October 27, 2003 rulemaking, several parties filed petitions for review of the ERP Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The D.C. Circuit stayed the effective date of the rule pending resolution of the petitions. A collection of environmental groups, public interest groups, and States, subsequently filed a petition for reconsideration with EPA, requesting that the Agency reconsider certain aspects of the ERP Rule. EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on July 1, 2004. See 69 FR 40278.2 After the reconsideration, EPA published its final response on June 10, 2005, which stated that the Agency would not change any aspects of the ERP. See 70 FR 33838 (June 10, 2005). On March 17, 2006, the D.C. Circuit acted on the petitions for review and vacated the ERP Rule.3

2 The reconsideration granted by EPA opened a new 60-day public comment period, and carried out a new public hearing, only on three issues of the ERP. These three issues included: (1) The basis for determining that the ERP was allowable under the CAA; (2) the basis for selecting the cost threshold (20 percent of the replacement cost of the process unit) that was used in the final rule to determine if a replacement was routine; and (3) a simplified procedure for incorporating a Federal Implementation Plan into State Plans to accommodate changes to the NSR rules.

3New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

III. Analysis of the State's Submittal

Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP revision makes changes to the State's PSD permitting regulations by adding a definition of “replacement unit” at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb) and by modifying the definition of “emissions unit” at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(g) to expressly include replacement units as existing emissions units. As of the date of the submittal, these changes were intended to reflect revisions to the Federal regulations regarding replacement units included in the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule and to reflect revisions regarding functionally equivalent components in the ERP Rule, as described in Sections II.A and II.B of this action, above.

The SIP revision initially sought to add a definition of “replacement unit” at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb) that combined the Federal definition of “replacement unit” with language concerning functionally equivalent units and basic design parameters from the ERP Rule. However, the ERP Rule was vacated by the D.C. Circuit following the submittal of Alabama's SIP revision. Accordingly, on May 5, 2017, Alabama submitted a letter to EPA withdrawing, among other things, portions of the definition of “replacement unit” form its May 7, 2012, SIP revision that incorporated language from the ERP Rule with the exception of one sentence in subparagraph (bbb)(3) that provides an example of a “basic design parameter” as it relates to a replacement unit. EPA has evaluated this sentence, and the Agency believes that it is simply an illustrative example and that Alabama's provisions relating to RMRR remain consistent with Federal provisions and the CAA regarding RMRR. Pursuant to the withdrawal letter, the text of Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb)(3) for incorporation into the SIP reads as follows:

Replacement unit means an emissions unit for which all the criteria listed in subparagraphs (2)(bbb)1. through 4. of this section are met. No creditable emission reductions shall be generated from shutting down the existing emissions unit that is replaced. A replacement unit is subject to all permitting requirements for modifications under this rule.

1. The emissions unit is a reconstructed unit within the meaning of 40 CFR 60.15(b)(1), or the emissions unit completely takes the place of an existing emissions unit.

2. The emissions unit is identical to or functionally equivalent to the replaced emissions unit.

3. The replacement does not alter the basic design parameters of the process unit. Basic design parameters of a replaced unit shall also include all source specific emission limits and/or monitoring requirements.

4. The replaced emissions unit is permanently removed from the major stationary source, otherwise permanently disabled, or permanently barred from operation by a permit that is enforceable as a practical matter. If the replaced emissions unit is brought back into operation, it shall constitute a new emissions unit.

In Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(g), Alabama revises the definition of “Emissions Unit” by adding a new sentence at subparagraph (g)(2) that expressly includes replacement units as existing emissions units. This sentence references the new definition of “replacement unit” at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb), as presented above, and is consistent with the Federal definition of the term “replacement unit” at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(33). EPA has concluded that adding this change and Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb) to the SIP will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of ADEM Administrative Code Rules 335-3-14-.04(2)(g) and 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb), state effective on May 29, 2012. 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).

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.4

4 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

V. Final Action

EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP submittals, as revised via the State's May 5, 2017 withdrawal letter, that modify Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(g) and add Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb), as described above. This action is limited to the two rule revisions currently before the Agency and does not modify any other PSD rules in Alabama's SIP.

EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP 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 23, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 25, 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 23, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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

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 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 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 23, 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 this 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 7, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF 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 under “Chapter No. 335-3-14 Air Permits” by revising the entry for “Section 335-3-14-.04” 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. 335-3-14 Air Permits Section 335-3-14-.04 Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas [Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD)] 5/29/2012 8/24/2017 [Insert citation of publication] As of August 24, 2017 Section 335-3-14-.04 does not include Alabama's revision to adopt the PM2.5 SILs threshold and provisions (as promulgated in the October 20, 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule at 40 CFR 1.166(k)(2) and the term “particulate matter emissions” (as promulgated in the May 16, 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi)). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
[FR Doc. 2017-17342 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 160906822-7547-02] RIN 0648-BG33 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 37; Correction AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

NMFS published a final rule on July 25, 2017, to implement management measures described in Amendment 37 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 37). This notification corrects the coordinate contained in footnote 2 to Table 1 in the regulatory text to be consistent with the same management boundary and coordinate described in other regulations applicable to the snapper-grouper fishery.

DATES:

This correction notice is effective on August 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On July 25, 2017, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 34584) to implement management measures in Amendment 37. The final rule modifies the fishery management unit boundaries for hogfish in the South Atlantic by establishing two hogfish stocks, a Georgia through North Carolina (GA/NC) stock and a Florida Keys/East Florida (FLK/EFL) stock; establishes a rebuilding plan for the FLK/EFL hogfish stock; specifies fishing levels and accountability measures (AMs), and modifies or establishes management measures for the GA/NC and FLK/EFL stocks of hogfish. The purpose of the final rule is to manage hogfish using the best scientific information available while ending overfishing and rebuilding the FLK/EFL hogfish stock. The final rule is effective August 24, 2017.

Need for Correction

As explained in the final rule for Amendment 37, NMFS corrected an error with the footnotes in Table 1 of § 622.1. After the final rule published, NMFS discovered an additional error in one of those footnotes addressed in the final rule for Amendment 37. NMFS determined that a coordinate describing a management boundary for black sea bass and scup in footnote 2 was inaccurate and inconsistent with the same management boundary referenced in subpart I of part 622 of the Code of Federal Regulations. NMFS publishes this notification to correct that mistake. The coordinate in footnote 2 is intended to be “35°15.19′”, not “35°15.9′”.

Corrections

In the Federal Register on July 25, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-15588:

1. On p. 34594, instruction 2 is corrected to read as follows:

“2. In § 622.1, revise the Table 1 entry for “FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region,” revise the entry for footnote 2, and add footnote 8 to Table 1 to read as follows:”

2. On page 34594, footnote 2 in Table 1 to § 622.1 is corrected to read as follows:

“ 2 Black sea bass and scup are not managed by the FMP or regulated by this part north of 35°15.19′ N. lat., the latitude of Cape Hatteras Light, NC.”

Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: August 21, 2017. Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17970 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 160906822-7547-02] RIN 0648-XF602 Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2017 Recreational and Commercial Closures for the Florida Keys/East Florida Stock of Hogfish in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Temporary rule; closure.

SUMMARY:

NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the recreational and commercial sectors for the Florida Keys/East Florida (FLK/EFL) hogfish stock in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for the 2017 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS estimates recreational and commercial hogfish landings for the FLK/EFL stock for the 2017 fishing year have reached their respective annual catch limits (ACLs). Therefore, NMFS closes the recreational and commercial sectors for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico EEZ on August 24, 2017, through the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. This closure is necessary to protect the FLK/EFL hogfish resource.

DATES:

This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 24, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nikhil Mehta, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes hogfish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The final rule for Amendment 37 to the FMP established two stocks of hogfish with new stock boundaries under the jurisdiction of the Council (82 FR 34584; July 25, 2017). One stock is the Georgia through North Carolina (GA/NC) hogfish stock, which has a southern boundary extending east from the Florida and Georgia state border to the seaward boundary of the EEZ. The GA/NC stock's management area then extends northward to a line extending east from the North Carolina and Virginia state border to the seaward boundary of the EEZ. The other stock is the FLK/EFL hogfish stock. The FLK/EFL hogfish stock's management area extends south of 25°09′ N. latitude off the west coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico (near Cape Sable, Florida), east around South Florida, and then north off the east coast of Florida to a line extending east from the Florida/Georgia border to the seaward boundary of the EEZ. The final rule for Amendment 37 also established ACLs and AMs for both stocks of hogfish. The management measures in the final rule for Amendment 37 are effective on August 24, 2017.

The final rule for Amendment 37 established a recreational ACL of 15,689 fish and a commercial ACL of 3,510 lb (1592 kg), round weight, for the FLK/EFL hogfish stock for the 2017 fishing year. In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2)(i) and (ii), the recreational and commercial AMs for the FLK/EFL stock require an in-season closure of the respective sector if that sector's ACL is met or is projected to be met, and NMFS is then required to close the applicable sector by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register.

NMFS has determined that the 2017 recreational and commercial ACLs for the FLK/EFL hogfish stock established by Amendment 37 have already been reached. This temporary rule implements AMs to close the recreational and commercial sectors for the FLK/EFL hogfish stock for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. Accordingly, this AM closes the recreational and commercial sectors for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish in the South Atlantic EEZ effective 12:01 a.m. local time, August 24, 2017, until January 1, 2018, the start of the next fishing year. As established in Amendment 37, harvest for the recreational sector reopens on May 1, 2018, as recreational harvest is prohibited January through April and November through December each year. During recreational and commercial closures, the bag and possession limits for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish in or from the EEZ are zero.

Classification

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2)(i) and(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and public comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational and commercial sectors for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the AMs established by Amendment 37 (82 FR 34584, July 25, 2017) and located at 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2)(i) and (ii) have already been subject to notice and public comment. All that remains is to notify the public of the recreational and commercial closures for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the FLK/EFL hogfish resource, since time for notice and public comment will allow for continued recreational and commercial harvest and further exceedance of the recreational and commercial ACLs.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: August 21, 2017. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17958 Filed 8-21-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
82 163 Thursday, August 24, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 1 and 2 [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062] RIN 0579-AE35 Animal Welfare; Procedures for Applying for Licenses and Renewals AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are soliciting public comment on potential revisions to the licensing requirements under our Animal Welfare Act regulations to promote compliance with the Act, reduce licensing fees, and strengthen existing safeguards that prevent any individual whose license has been suspended or revoked, or who has a history of noncompliance, from obtaining a license or working with regulated animals. We are soliciting public comment on these topics to help us consider ways to reduce regulatory burden and more efficiently ensure the sustained compliance of licensees with the Act.

DATES:

We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0062.

Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0062 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Kay Carter-Corker, Director, National Policy Staff, Animal Care, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3748.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, and carriers and intermediate handlers. The Secretary has delegated responsibility for administering the AWA to the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the responsibility for administering the AWA has been delegated to the Deputy Administrator for Animal Care. Regulations and standards established under the AWA are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to below as the regulations). Part 1 contains definitions for terms used in parts 2 and 3. Part 2 provides administrative requirements and sets forth institutional responsibilities for regulated parties, including licensing requirements for dealers, operators of auction sales, and exhibitors. Dealers, exhibitors, and operators of auction sales are required to comply in all respects with the regulations and standards, pursuant to 9 CFR 2.100(a).

Under the current regulations, an applicant for an initial license is required to submit an application form, an application fee, and an annual license fee to APHIS-Animal Care (9 CFR 2.1(c)), acknowledge receipt of a copy of the regulations and agree to comply with them by signing the application form (9 CFR 2.2(a)), and demonstrate compliance with the AWA regulations and standards before APHIS can issue a license (9 CFR 2.3(a)). Once a licensee receives a license, a licensee renews his or her license by submitting an annual renewal form and license fee (9 CFR 2.1(d)(1)).

Although an applicant for renewal certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that he or she is in compliance with all regulations and standards, the current regulations do not require the applicant to demonstrate compliance before APHIS renews his or her license. The current regulations also do not require a licensee to demonstrate compliance when the licensee makes any subsequent changes to his or her animals or facilities, including noteworthy changes in the number or type of animals used in regulated activity.

In this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, we are soliciting public comment on potential revisions to the licensing requirements to better promote sustained compliance with the AWA, reduce licensing fees and burdens, and strengthen existing safeguards that prevent individuals and businesses who are unfit to hold a license (such as any individual whose license has been suspended or revoked or who has a history of noncompliance) from obtaining a license or working with regulated animals. Potential regulatory changes we are considering include:

• Establishing a firm expiration date for licenses (e.g., after a 3-5 year period), after which the licensee would once again be required to affirmatively demonstrate compliance before obtaining another license;

• Specifying procedures to ensure licensees have ample time to apply for licenses and demonstrate compliance prior to the expiration of an existing license, and issuing conditional licenses to licensees with histories of compliance should they be in jeopardy of an inadvertent lapse in licensure during the license application process;

• Requiring licensees to affirmatively demonstrate compliance when making noteworthy changes subsequent to the issuance of a license in regard to the number, type, or location of animals used in regulated activities;

• Eliminating the application fee and annual license fee and assessing reasonable fees only for licenses issued (as in the example above, such as every 3-5 years);

• Requiring license applicants to disclose any animal cruelty convictions or other violations of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations pertaining to animals;

• With respect to pre-licensing inspections to assess compliance, reducing from three to two the number of opportunities an applicant has to correct deficiencies and take corrective measures before the applicant forfeits his or her application and fee and must reapply for a license;

• Closing a loophole in the current regulations that allows individuals and businesses, although they do not operate as bona fide exhibitors, to become licensed as such in order to circumvent State laws restricting ownership of exotic and wild animals to AWA-licensed exhibitors;

• Strengthening existing prohibitions to expressly restrict individuals and businesses whose licenses have been suspended or revoked from working for other regulated entities, and prevent individuals with histories of noncompliance (or orders suspending or revoking a license) from applying for new licenses through different individuals or business names; and

• Streamlining the procedures for denying a license application, terminating a license, and summarily suspending a license.

To aid in the development of those potential regulatory changes, we invite data and information from the public regarding potential economic effects, including benefits and costs, on dealers, operators of auction sales, and exhibitors, and potential alternatives to reduce regulatory burdens and more efficiently and consistently ensure sustained compliance of licensees with the AWA. In addition, we invite comments from the public on the following questions:

1. Should we propose to establish a firm expiration date for licenses (such as 3-5 years) and if so, what should that date be and why? Please provide supporting data.

2. What fees would be reasonable to assess for licenses issued? Are the existing license fees (9 CFR 2.6) reasonable, or should they be adjusted to take additional factors into consideration, such as the type of animals used in regulated activities? Please provide data in support of any proposed adjustments to the license fees.

3. In addition to the existing prohibitions on any person whose license has been suspended or revoked from buying, selling, transporting, exhibiting, or delivering for transportation animals during the period of suspension or revocation (9 CFR 2.10(c)), should such persons be prohibited from engaging in other activities involving animals regulated under the AWA, such as working for other AWA-regulated entities or using other individual names or business entities to apply for a license? Please suggest specific activities that should be covered and provide supporting data and information.

4. Do you have any other specific concerns or recommendations for reducing regulatory burdens involving the licensing process or otherwise improving the licensing requirements under the AWA?

This action has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This action is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

Authority:

7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

Done in Washington, DC, this day of August 21, 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17967 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0618; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-9] Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Burns Flat, OK; Revocation of Class D Airspace; Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and Amendment of E Airspace for the Following Oklahoma Towns: Burns Flat, OK; Clinton, OK; and Elk City, OK AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

This action proposes to establish Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; remove Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; Clinton Municipal Airport, Clinton, OK; and Elk City Regional Business Airport, Elk City, OK. The FAA is proposing this action due to the decommissioning of the Sayre co-located VHF omnidirectional range and tactical air navigation (VORTAC) facility, which provided navigation guidance for the instrument procedures to these airports. The VORTAC is being decommissioned as part of the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0618; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-9 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; remove Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; Clinton Municipal Airport, Clinton, OK; and Elk City Regional Business Airport, Elk City, OK, to enhance the safety and support the management of IFR operations at these airports.

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0618; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

Availability of NPRMs

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Proposal

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 that would:

Establish Class D airspace within a 4.7-mile radius of Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK, to replace the airspace designation of Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK, and bring the airspace descriptions in line with the requirements of FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters;

Remove Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and Modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface as follows:

Within a 7.2-mile radius (reduced from an 8.2-mile radius) of Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK, and remove the Burns Flat VORTAC and extensions to the south and north of the airport from the airspace description;

Correcting the airspace header to Clinton, OK, (formerly Clinton Municipal Airport, OK) to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, remove the extension south of Clinton Regional Airport (formerly Clinton Municipal Airport), add an extension 2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles north of the airport, and update the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and

Within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Elk City Regional Business Airport (formerly Elk City Municipal Airport), Elk City, OK, remove the extension to the northeast of the airport, remove the Elk City RBN from the airspace description, and update the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Sayre VORTAC as part of the VOR MON Program, and to bring the airspace and airspace descriptions into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

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

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASW OK D Burns Flat, OK [New] Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK (Lat. 35°20′23″ N., long. 99°12′02″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,500 feet within a 4.7-mile radius of Clinton-Sherman Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

ASW OK D Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW OK E5 Burns Flat, OK [Amended] Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK (Lat. 35°20′23″ N., long. 99°12′02″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Clinton-Sherman Airport.

ASW OK E5 Clinton, OK [Amended] Clinton Regional Airport, OK (lat. 35°32′18″ N., long. 98°55′58″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Clinton Regional Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles north of the airport.

ASW OK E5 Elk City, OK [Amended] Elk City Regional Business Airport, OK (Lat. 35°25′51″ N., long. 99°23′39″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Elk City Regional Business Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 16, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-17753 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0145; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-4] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Burlington, WI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Burbun VHF omnidirectional range (VOR), and cancellation of the VOR approach procedure, and would enhance the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport, as the FAA transitions to performance-based navigation as part of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action would also update the geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0145 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The request to decommission the Burbun VOR was requested by the Plans and Program office in the FAA's Central Service Center. The Burbun VOR was one of the VORs on the list to be decommissioned within the VOR Minimum Operating Network published in the Federal Register (81 FR 48694, July 26, 2016). As part of NextGen, the number of conventional navaids would be reduced while more efficient area navigation (RNAV) routes and procedures are implemented throughout the National Airspace System.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017- 0145/Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-4.” 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 the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Proposal

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile radius) of Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI. Airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Burbun VOR, cancellation of the VOR approach and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for (RNAV) IFR operations at the airport.

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

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL WI E5 Burlington, WI [Amended] Burlington Municipal Airport, WI (Lat. 42°41′27″ N., long. 88°18′17″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Burlington Municipal Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on August 16, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-17755 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 [Docket No. RM16-6-000] Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response: Notice of Request for Supplemental Comments AGENCY:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Request for supplemental comments.

SUMMARY:

On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that, among other things, proposed to revise the Commission's regulations to require all newly interconnecting large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install and enable primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small generating facilities.

DATES:

Comments are due September 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. RM16-6-000, by any of the following methods:

• Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments electronically may mail or hand deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jomo Richardson (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6281, [email protected]

Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8524, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 1 that proposed to modify the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) and the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA), pursuant to its authority under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure that rates, terms and conditions of jurisdictional service remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.2 As modified, the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA would require all new large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install, maintain, and operate equipment capable of providing primary frequency response as a condition of interconnection. The Commission also proposed certain operating requirements, including minimum requirements for droop and deadband parameters, and requirements to ensure the timely and sustained response to frequency deviations in the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small generating facilities.

1Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 81 FR 85176 (November 25, 2016), 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 (2016) (NOPR).

2 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012).

I. Background

2. Following a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that explored a broad range of issues regarding primary frequency response and the evolving Bulk-Power System,3 the Commission issued the NOPR at issue in this proceeding. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that its proposals address concerns that the existing pro forma LGIA contains only limited primary frequency response requirements, and those requirements only apply to large synchronous generating facilities, and do not reflect recent technological advancements enabling new large and small non-synchronous generating facilities to install the capability to provide primary frequency response.4 Further, the Commission stated that to avoid establishing new requirements that could be unduly discriminatory or preferential, the proposed reforms would impose comparable primary frequency response requirements on both new large and small generating facilities.5 In addition, the Commission did not propose to: (1) Apply these requirements to generating facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; (2) impose a headroom requirement; or (3) mandate that new generating facilities receive compensation for complying with the proposed requirements, noting that a public utility is not prohibited from filing a proposal for primary frequency response compensation under FPA section 205,6 if it so chooses.7

3Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 (2016).

4 NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at PP 2, 11, 13.

5Id. P 2.

6 16 U.S.C. 824d (2012).

7Id. PP 1, 55.

3. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the proposed requirements will help ensure adequate primary frequency response capability as the resource mix continues to evolve, with fair and consistent treatment for all types of generating facilities, and will help balancing authorities meet their frequency response obligations under NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1.8

8Id. P 43. In January 2014, the Commission approved Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 requiring balancing authorities to meet a minimum required Frequency Response Obligation. While Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 establishes requirements for balancing authorities, it does not impose requirements on individual generating facilities. Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting Reliability Standard, Order No. 794, 146 FERC ¶ 61,024 (2014).

II. Request for Comments A. Electric Storage Resources

4. The NOPR proposals did not propose provisions specific to electric storage resources. Several commenters raise concerns that, by failing to address electric storage resources' unique technical attributes, the NOPR requirements could pose an unduly discriminatory burden on electric storage resources. The Energy Storage Association (ESA) asserts that the proposed requirements could result in unique, adverse impacts on electric storage resources. Particularly, ESA states that the proposed use of nameplate capacity as the basis for primary frequency response service and the fact that electric storage resources are capable of operating at the full range of their capacity (i.e., they have no minimum set point) will require storage to provide a “greater magnitude of [primary frequency response] service than traditional generating facilities.” 9 ESA also explains that while traditional generating facilities would have no primary frequency response obligations while offline, electric storage resources are always online, even when not charging or discharging, and under the requirements proposed in the NOPR, they would therefore be required to provide primary frequency response on a more frequent basis than generating facilities that can go offline.10 Further, ESA explains that the optimal depth of discharge differs among various electric storage technologies, and exceeding the optimal depth of discharge accelerates the degradation of the facility and increases operations and maintenance costs.11

9 ESA Comments at 4.

10Id. at 3-4.

11Id.

5. To address its concerns, ESA requests that the Final Rule: (1) Allow electric storage resources to specify a minimum set point for the purposes of primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection; and (2) include inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint that would relieve electric storage resources from the sustained response requirement.12 In the absence of these changes, ESA requests an exemption from the proposed primary frequency response requirements.13 In its comments, AES Companies (AES) seeks a complete exemption from the proposed NOPR requirements for electric storage resources.14 AES also asserts that a droop requirement of five percent would needlessly limit the contribution that electric storage resources that are specifically designed for primary frequency response can make to grid stability.15

12Id. at 4-5.

13Id. at 5.

14 AES Comments at 17 and 19 (specifying changes to the proposed pro forma language).

15Id. at 6-7.

6. In light of these concerns, the Commission seeks additional information to better understand the performance characteristics and limitations of electric storage resources, possible ramifications of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources, and what changes, if any, are needed to address the issues raised by ESA and others. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:

1. Some commenters state that certain proposed requirements are not appropriate for electric storage resources, in particular, certain of the proposed settings related to droop (e.g., basing the droop parameter on nameplate capacity) and the requirement for timely and sustained response to frequency deviations.

a. Are there challenges or operational implications (e.g., unusual or excessive wear and tear) of requiring electric storage resources to implement the proposed operating settings for droop (including basing the droop parameter on nameplate capacity), deadband, and timely and sustained response? If so, please provide an explanation, and explain how these challenges are different than those faced by other synchronous and non-synchronous generating facilities.

b. Also, please explain whether and how possible impacts of the proposed requirements on electric storage resources vary by their state of charge, and whether those possible impacts are the same or different for all electric storage technologies. If these impacts vary by the type of electric storage technology, please elaborate.

c. If the proposed operating settings for droop, deadband, and sustained response would cause any operational or other concerns unique to electric storage resources that would justify different operating settings than those proposed in the NOPR, what minimum requirements for droop, deadband, and timely and sustained response might be more appropriate for the effective provision of primary frequency response from electric storage resources? Or are there parameters other than those discussed in the NOPR (e.g., droop, deadband) that are more applicable to electric storage resources that could be used to accomplish effective timely and sustained primary frequency response? If so, what would those parameters be?

2. Are there risks associated with requiring electric storage resources, which are energy-limited, to provide timely and sustained primary frequency response, such as possible adverse effects on an electric storage resource's ability to fulfill other obligations (e.g., providing energy or other ancillary services)?

3. Please describe the relationship between electric storage resources being online and the provision of primary frequency response.

a. Are electric storage resources that are always online available on a more frequent basis to provide primary frequency response than generating facilities that start-up and shut-down (i.e., go offline)? If so, please elaborate on possible operational or other impacts, if any, that the proposed requirements may have on generating facilities that are always online, as compared to generating facilities that go offline.

b. Please discuss whether it is possible to “turn off” an electric storage resource's primary frequency response capability (i.e., disable the ability to respond to frequency deviations without physically disconnecting from the grid) when the electric storage resource is neither charging nor discharging and not providing other services (e.g., energy or other ancillary services) to the power system. To the extent possible, please explain if this ability would vary by the type of electric storage technology.

4. Please explain what is meant by “minimum set point” and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.

a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or eliminated, if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the provision of primary frequency response service? If so, please elaborate.

b. Would the primary frequency response requirements proposed in the NOPR result in electric storage resources that have no such minimum set point providing a greater magnitude of primary frequency response for a given frequency deviation than other generating facilities of equal nameplate capacity that have a minimum set point? Please provide an explanation as to why this is or is not the case.

c. How and in what ways would the implementation of such a minimum set point change an electric storage resource's response to frequency deviations, as compared to other generating facilities that do not implement a minimum set point? As part of this explanation, please explain whether the implementation of a minimum set point would: (1) Limit the provision of primary frequency response for electric storage resources to a megawatt (MW) range (i.e., between a minimum value and the nameplate capacity of the electric storage resource); (2) be used in lieu of nameplate capacity as the basis of the droop curve (i.e., reduce the expected proportional MW response to frequency deviations below that of other generating facilities of equivalent nameplate capacity for a given percentage droop (e.g., a 5 percent droop)); or (3) be used in some other way.

d. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the purposes of primary frequency response:

i. How would they determine the appropriate value of the minimum set point for a given electric storage resource? What technical characteristics or economic factors should be considered in establishing a minimum set point for the various types of electric storage resources?

ii. Should the minimum set point be static, or dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes.

iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be required to specify in their interconnection agreements the value of the minimum set point and indicate whether it is static or dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided to the relevant balancing authority?

5. Please explain what is meant by “inadequate state of charge” and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.

a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or eliminated if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an explicit operational constraint relieving electric storage resources from providing sustained response when in that “inadequate” state? If so, please elaborate.

b. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint for electric storage resources:

i. How would they determine what level of charge is “inadequate” thus preventing electric storage resources from providing sustained primary frequency response output?

ii. Should the inadequate state of charge parameter be static, or dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes.

iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be required to specify in their interconnection agreements a parameter for “inadequate state of charge” and indicate whether it is static or dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided to the relevant balancing authority?

6. What impacts, if any, would owners/operators of electric storage resources experience if their resources are not allowed to maintain a specified range of state of charge?

a. Is there a certain range of state of charge (expressed as a percentage of total charge) that would enable an electric storage resource to provide primary frequency response without possible adverse impacts?

b. Would this range be the same for all electric storage resources, or would it depend on the particular technology of a given electric storage resource and/or the duration that the resource could sustain its output?

c. Are there differences in terms of adverse impacts on an electric storage resource depending on whether its state of charge is low (e.g., five percent remaining charge) or high (e.g., 98 percent remaining charge)? If so, please elaborate.

d. To the extent there are adverse impacts, would they differ for different electric storage technologies? If so, please elaborate.

7. In lieu of (1) establishing a minimum set point for electric storage resources and (2) including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint, could owners/operators of all or certain types of electric storage resources or another entity specify an operating range 16 outside of which electric storage resources would not be required to provide and/or sustain primary frequency response to prevent adverse impacts on the electric storage resources?

16 For the purposes of this document, “operating range” is defined as minimum state of charge, maximum state of charge, maximum rate of charge, and maximum rate of discharge.

a. Would it be possible to base such an operating range on manufacturer specifications and, if so, would establishing such an operating range potentially address concerns about the harm to the resource, degradation of its useful life, or other potential adverse impacts?

b. Would it be possible to specify such an operating range at the time of interconnection and include the operating range in the interconnection agreement? By what means should the operating range be communicated to the relevant balancing authority?

8. Are there other mechanisms or ways to address the concerns raised by ESA and others on the proposed primary frequency response requirements instead of: (1) Establishing a minimum set point and including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint; or (2) establishing an operating range as described above.

B. Small Generating Facilities

7. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that small generating facilities be subject to new primary frequency response requirements in the pro forma SGIA. The Commission stated that the record indicates that small generating facilities are capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost in a manner comparable to large generating facilities.17

17 NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 41 (citing IEEE-P1547 Working Group Comments at 1, 5, and 7).

8. Some commenters raise concerns that small generating facilities could face disproportionate costs to install primary frequency response capability.18 For example, the Public Interest Organizations state that the Commission's discussion of the economic impact on small generating facilities of installing primary frequency response capability is limited, and claims the information in the NOPR does not directly support the Commission's conclusion that “small generating facilities are capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost in a manner comparable to large generating facilities.” 19 Public Interest Organizations encourage the Commission to further investigate the cost for small renewable energy generating facilities to install frequency response capability before making the proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIA.20 National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) asserts that the record is insufficient to conclude that the proposed primary frequency response capability requirement will not pose an undue burden on smaller generating facilities.21

18 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3; NRECA Comments at 8.

19 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3 (citing NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 42).

20Id. at 3-4.

21 NRECA Comments at 8.

9. Other commenters request that the Commission consider a size limitation. In particular, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power), NRECA, and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) request the Commission adopt a size limitation for applying the NOPR requirements.22

22 Idaho Power Comments at 2; NRECA Comments at 8; TVA Comments at 3-4.

10. To augment the record regarding the ability of small generating facilities to comply with the proposed primary frequency response requirements, and their potential economic impact, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:

1. Are the costs for small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls proportionally comparable to the costs for large generating facilities? If costs are proportionally higher for small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls, what accounts for these higher costs? Quantify, to the extent possible, any general differences in these costs between small and large generating facilities.

2. If small generating facilities were required to comply with the proposed primary frequency response requirements, do recent technological advances in primary frequency response capability minimize or eliminate possible barriers to entry of small generating facilities? If not, in what specific ways could the proposed requirements be a barrier to entry? Should such negative impacts occur, please discuss means by which the Commission could potentially mitigate or eliminate them?

3. Is an exemption appropriate for all or a subset of small generating facilities based on possible disproportionate cost impacts of installing the capability to provide primary frequency response? If so, please provide specific cost data demonstrating that is the case.

4. Given their increasing market penetration and operational role in the Bulk-Power System, please discuss the extent to which small generating facilities are necessary to ensure adequate primary frequency response.

5. Please discuss whether PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM's) recent changes to its interconnection agreements, which require new large and small non-synchronous generating facilities to install enhanced inverters that include primary frequency response capability,23 address concerns regarding possible disproportionate costs or barriers resulting from applying the NOPR proposals to the entire set of small generating facilities. If yes, please discuss the viability of applying PJM's approach in other regions.

23See NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 42 (citing PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,097, at P 28 (2015)).

III. Comment Procedures

11. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this document to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due September 14, 2017. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16-6-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

12. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

13. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

14. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

16. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

By direction of the Commission.

Issued: August 18, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17952 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 209 [COE-2016-0016] RIN 0710-AA72 Use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for Domestic, Municipal & Industrial Water Supply AGENCY:

Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is reopening the public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared in the Federal Register of December 16, 2016.

DATES:

The comment period for the proposed rule published December 16, 2016 at 81 FR 91556 and extended to August 18, 2017 at 82 FR 22452 is reopened until November 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following methods:

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

Email: [email protected] Include the docket number, COE-2016-0016, in the subject line of the message.

Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECC-L, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G St NW., Washington, DC 20314.

Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical information: Jim Fredericks, 503-808-3856. Legal information: Daniel Inkelas, 202-761-0345.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In response to requests from multiple parties, USACE is extending the time for public comments to November 16, 2017. The date listed in the DATES section by which comments must be received is changed from August 18, 2017 to November 16, 2017.

Dated: August 17, 2017. David R. Cooper, Chief Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[FR Doc. 2017-17779 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0371; FRL-9966-46-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD Replacement Units AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), on May 7, 2012. The portion of the revision that EPA is proposing to approve relates to the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations. In particular, the revision adds a definition of “replacement unit” and provides that a replacement unit is a type of existing emissions unit under the definition of “emissions unit.” This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0371 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:

Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-8966 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the portion of Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP revision addressing the State's PSD program 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 and incorporated herein by reference. 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 adverse 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 7, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-17343 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-9966-60-Region 7] Approval of Iowa's Air Quality Implementation Plan; Muscatine Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, which the State of Iowa (the state) submitted to the EPA on May 26, 2016, for attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the Muscatine nonattainment area. This plan (herein called a “nonattainment plan”) includes the state's attainment demonstration and other elements required under Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 172, 191, and 192. In addition to an attainment demonstration, the plan addresses the requirement for meeting reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), base-year and projection-year emission inventories, and contingency measures. The EPA proposes to conclude that the state has appropriately demonstrated that the plan provisions provide for attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS in the Muscatine nonattainment area by the applicable attainment date and that the plan meets the other applicable requirements under CAA sections 172, 191, and 192.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

Table of Contents I. Why was Iowa required to submit an SO2 plan for the Muscatine area? II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Term Averaging IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan A. Model Selection B. Meteorological Data C. Emissions Data D. Emission Limits 1. Enforceability 2. Longer Term Averaging E. Background Concentrations F. Summary of Results 1. Phase 1—Preliminary Analysis 2. Phase 2—Control Strategy Development V. Review of Other Plan Requirements A. Emissions Inventory and the Quantification of Emissions B. RACM/RACT C. Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) E. Contingency Measures VI. Additional Elements of the State's Submittal A. Compliance With Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA B. Equivalent Techniques VII. EPA's Proposed Action VIII. Incorporation by Reference IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Why was Iowa required to submit an SO2 plan for the Muscatine area?

On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On August 5, 2013, the EPA designated 29 areas of the country as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the Muscatine area in the State of Iowa. See 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area designations were effective October 4, 2013. Section 191 of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs for areas designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to the EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., by no later than April 4, 2015. These SIPs must demonstrate that the respective areas will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the effective date of designation, which is October 4, 2018.

On March 18, 2016, the EPA published an action that the State of Iowa failed to submit the required SO2 nonattainment plan for the Muscatine area by the SIP submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to Iowa's submittal of May 26, 2016, and the SIP becoming complete by operation of law on November 26, 2016, the sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the finding triggers a requirement that the EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years of the finding unless, by that time (a) the state has made the necessary complete submittal and (b) EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. This FIP obligation will not apply if EPA makes final the approval action proposed here by March 18, 2018.

The remainder of this preamble describes the requirements that nonattainment SIPs must meet in order to obtain EPA approval, provides a review of the state's plan with respect to these requirements, and describes the EPA's proposed action on the plan.

II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans

Nonattainment SIPs must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 172, 191 and 192. The EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a document entitled the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and fundamental principles for SIP control strategies. Id., at 13545-49, 13567-68. On April 23, 2014, the EPA issued recommended guidance for meeting the statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs, in a document entitled, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,” (April 2014 guidance) available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. In this guidance the EPA described the statutory requirements for a complete nonattainment area SIP, which includes: An accurate emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area; an attainment demonstration; demonstration of RFP; implementation of RACM (including RACT); new source review (NSR) and, adequate contingency measures for the affected area.

In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172 and 191-192 and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement, and no requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Term Averaging

CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. General Preamble, at 13567-68. SO2 attainment plans must consist of two components: (1) Emission limits and other control measures that assure implementation of permanent, enforceable and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis which meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W which demonstrates that these emission limits and control measures provide for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the attainment date for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limits and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine compliance with the respective emission limits and control measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear, unambiguous and measureable requirements for which compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result), and accountable (source specific limits must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP demonstrations).

The EPA's April 2014 guidance recommends that the emission limits be expressed as short-term average limits (e.g., addressing emissions averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See 2014 guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance recommends that—should states and sources utilize longer averaging times—the longer term average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical emission value shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise would have set.

The April 2014 guidance provides an extensive discussion of the EPA's rationale for concluding that appropriately set comparably stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating this option, the EPA considered the nature of the standard, conducted detailed analyses of the impact of use of 30-day average limits on the prospects for attaining the standard, and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate balance among the various factors that warrant consideration in judging whether a state's plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22 to 39. See also id. at Appendices B, C, and D.

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

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

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

The EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given hour do not exceed the critical emission value. The EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the “critical emissions value,” which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of a NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level corresponding to the critical emission value. However, for several reasons, the EPA believes that the approach recommended in its April 2014 guidance document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical perspective, the EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source subject to an appropriately set longer term average limit to be similar to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour average limit. The EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended that the longer term average limit be set at a level that is comparably stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a downward adjustment from the critical emissions value) and that takes the source's emissions profile into account. As a result, the EPA expects either form of emission limit to yield comparable air quality.

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

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

This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. As described in appendix B of EPA's April 2014 SO2 nonattainment planning guidance, the EPA found that the requirement for lower average emissions is highly likely to yield better air quality than is required with a comparably stringent 1-hour limit. Based on analyses described in appendix B of its April 2014 guidance, the EPA expects that an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set comparably stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net effect of having a lower number of exceedances and better air quality than an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour emission limit at the critical emission value. This result provides a compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this result can be expected to occur.

The question then becomes whether this approach—which is likely to produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value—meets the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) for state implementation plans to “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS. For SO2, as for other pollutants, it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment plan in the present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in the future. A variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment plan to fail and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if meteorology occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was anticipated in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets the requirement to provide for attainment, the EPA's task is commonly to judge not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment will in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate level of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective, in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk that occasions with meteorology conducive to high concentrations will have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement for lower emissions on average will result in days not having exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at the critical emissions value. Additional policy considerations, such as in this case the desirability of accommodating real world emissions variability without significant risk of violations, are also appropriate factors for the EPA to weigh in judging whether a plan provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan will lead to attainment. Based on these considerations, especially given the high likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long as 30 days, determined in accordance with the EPA's April 2014 guidance, will result in attainment, the EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

The April 2014 guidance offers specific recommendations for determining an appropriate longer term average limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical emission value), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the (lower) level of the longer term average emission limit that would be estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new controls) may require use of an emission database from another source. The recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation. In this recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit to determine a longer term average emission limit that may be considered comparably stringent.2 The April 2014 guidance also addresses a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might occur under the longer term emission rate limit.

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

Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in appendix A of the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W (appendix W)). In 2005, the EPA promulgated the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) as the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO2 standard is provided in appendix A to the April 2014 guidance. Appendix A provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.

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

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

IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan

The following discussion evaluates various features of the modeling that Iowa used in its attainment demonstration.

A. Model Selection

Iowa's attainment demonstration used the most current version of AERMOD available during each phase of its analysis (i.e., the determining sources culpable to nonattainment phase and the control strategy phase). As previously stated, AERMOD is the preferred model for this application. The final control strategy modeling analysis utilized version 15181. The state asserts that all analyses were conducted with EPA's regulatory default options and considering EPA's guidance documents including the August 2010 1-hour SO2 clarification memo; the “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” memo (March 2011 1-hour NO2 clarification memo); and the December 2013 SO2 Modeling Technical Assistance Document (TAD).3 The receptor grid was centered on the Musser Park monitor, and extended out to the edges of the nonattainment area.4 Those portions of the fence lines of the facilities being evaluated that fell outside of the nonattainment area were omitted from the analysis. Finer grid spacing of 50 meters was used to resolve modeled impacts around other nearby individual facilities included in the analyses, but finer grid spacing was applied only around sources within the confines of the nonattainment area. Receptors were excluded from areas within the property boundaries of each facility in the analysis. The most recent version of AERMAP (11103) was used to import terrain and source elevations from the National Elevation Dataset (NED). All building downwash analyses were conducted using the most recent version (04274) of EPA's Building Profile Input Program with Plume Rise Enhancements (BPIP-Prime). EPA finds the selection and use of these inputs to AERMOD, AERMAP and BPIP-Prime to be appropriate and in accordance with appendix W and applicable EPA guidance, such as the TAD.5

3 SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document, December 2013.

4 The Musser Park monitor was the violating monitor utilized during the designations process.

5 The state utilized the December 2013 version of the modeling TAD when completing its technical analysis. The modeling TAD has been revised since then; the TAD was revised in February 2016 and then again in August 2016.

B. Meteorological Data

Modeling for the Muscatine 1-hr SO2 nonattainment SIP was conducted using the surface station and upper air data from the Davenport airport, and used consecutive years from 2008-2012.6 This represents the most recent, readily available 5-year period at the time of the initial analysis per section 8.3.1.2 of 40 CFR part 51 appendix W. The most current version of AERMET available during each phase of the analysis was used. The final control strategy analysis utilized data processed with AERMET version 14134. The state utilized AERMINUTE to process 1-minute ASOS wind data to generate hourly average winds for input to AERMET. EPA finds the selection and use of these inputs to AERMET to be appropriate and in accordance with appendix W and applicable EPA guidance, such as the TAD.

6 A detailed analysis to support the use of the Davenport meteorological data from the Davenport airport was previously approved by EPA for use in the PM2.5 Muscatine SIP analysis. See 79 FR 46742. EPA finds use of the Davenport airport site meteorological data to be appropriate for the 2010 1-hr SO2 Muscatine SIP.

C. Emissions Data

The state utilized information from the technical support document (TSD) it submitted to EPA during the nonattainment boundary recommendations to inform which sources needed to be included in its nonattainment SIP modeling.7 The nonattainment boundary analysis demonstrated that industrial sources along the Mississippi River have a role in causing or contributing to monitored exceedances at the Musser Park monitor. Based on this analysis, all major sources of SO2 emissions within the nonattainment area- Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), Muscatine Power and Water (MPW), and Monsanto- were included in the nonattainment SIP control strategy analysis.

7https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/so2-designations-round-1-iowa-state-recommendation-and-epa-response and provided in the docket of this rulemaking.

As described in the state's nonattainment SIP, GPC is the largest source of SO2 within the nonattainment area. GPC is a corn wet milling facility that processes grain into industrial, beverage, and fuel-grade ethanol, as well as a variety of grain based food products, industrial products, and animal feeds. Early in the corn wet milling process the grain is soaked (steeped) in large tanks where sulfur containing compounds are added to the steep water to reduce bacterial growth and help break down the kernels. The sulfur content in the steep water is generally low but does lead to SO2 emissions from a variety of downstream processes. The state asserts that 96 percent of the SO2 emissions at GPC is generated by six coal-fired boilers.

MPW is a municipal electric generating station. MPW produces steam through the combustion of fossil fuels, generally coal, and uses the steam to produce electricity. The largest sources of SO2 operated at MPW are three coal-fired boilers, Units 7, 8, and 9, serving generators with nameplate capacities of 25, 937, and 175.5 megawatts (MW), respectively. An auxiliary boiler operated at MPW is not capable of burning coal but has the potential to emit SO2 when firing on distillate fuel oil.

Monsanto is a manufacturer and formulator of herbicides for agricultural use and also produces intermediates for herbicide manufacturing and formulation. A coal-fired boiler (Boiler #8) used for the production of on-site heat and power is the largest SO2 source at Monsanto.

The state excluded four facilities located within the nonattainment area from the its nonattainment SIP modeling analysis: HNI Corporation—North Campus (HNI North); H.J. Heinz, L.P. (H.J. Heinz); Union Tank Car Co. (Union Tank); and HNI Corporation—Central Campus (HNI Central). As shown in the state's nonattainment SIP, the cumulative actual emissions from these sources is relatively low; the sources emitted a combined 0.14 tons of SO2 per year (tpy) in 2011. See section V.A. Emissions Inventory in this preamble for the 2011 emissions data from these sources. Additionally, if the state were to consider the maximum fuel capacity of a source like Heinz that has two boilers that burn natural gas, it is unlikely that the SO2 emissions would be sufficient enough to cause a significant concentration gradient. The TAD indicates that “other” sources in the area not causing significant concentration gradients in the vicinity of the source(s) of interest, should be included in the modeling via monitored background concentrations. The EPA agrees with the state's recommendation that these facilities do not need to be explicitly modeled and that they are adequately characterized in the background SO2 concentrations. See section IV.E. Background Concentrations in this preamble for more detailed information regarding the determination of the background concentration.

The state also evaluated several major sources of SO2 emissions located outside of the nonattainment area boundary- MidAmerican Energy Louisa Generating Station (LGS), Gerdau Ameristeel (Gerdau), SSAB and Linwood and Lafarge. Linwood and Lafarge, located in Scott County, are approximately 20 km away from the nonattainment area. The selection of the Davenport monitor to represent background likely accounts for the emissions from Linwood and Lafarge.8 As such, Linwood and Lafarge were excluded from further consideration. See section IV.E. Background Concentrations in this preamble for additional information.

8 According to information provided by the state in its nonattainment SIP, the Davenport monitor is located in Scott County, approximately 11 km from Linwood and Lafarge, and likely accounts for the emissions from Lafarge and Linwood.

All included emission units were modeled using their actual stack parameters and site layout. There were no stacks above formula GEP (good engineering practice) height. There were stacks greater than 65 meters at GPC, MPW, and LGS and each of those stacks were adjacent to tall buildings making the formula height taller than the actual stack height. Therefore, each of those stacks were modeled at their actual stack heights.

Per EPA's April 2014 guidance, the use of allowable emissions and the modeling of intermittent emissions (for sources such as emergency generators and startup/shutdown emissions), for the purpose of modeling for SO2 attainment demonstrations, should follow the recommendations in EPA's March 2011 1-hour NO2 clarification memo (even though it was specific to NO2). The state's nonattainment SIP indicates that it addressed modeling intermittent sources in according with EPA's March 2011 1-hour NO2 clarification memo, and as such all emission units that operate intermittently (e.g., emergency engines and fire pumps) were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, emission units that were limited to burning a specific fuel occasionally were modeled at emission rates that represent the fuel that is burned during normal operations. For example, the two auxiliary boilers (EP2 and EP3) operated by LGS are limited to burning fuel oil for no more than 48 hours per year. EP2 and EP3 burn natural gas during normal operations therefore, EP2 and EP3 were modeled at emission rates associated with burning natural gas. EPA agrees with the state that it is appropriate to exclude these intermittent emissions (e.g., emergency engines and fire pumps) in the analysis and modeling the fuel burned during normal operations, as it is consistent with appendix W and the TAD.

The state's nonattainment SIP acknowledges that, although SO2 emissions in and near the nonattainment area are principally attributable to point sources, a comprehensive emissions inventory should include an assessment of the other source sectors. The state asserted that it accomplished this by using estimates of air emissions for the onroad, nonroad, and nonpoint (area) sources from EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) datasets. According to the state's sector summary analyses using EPA's SCC (source classification code) full detail data files from the 2011 NEI (version 2, dated March 4, 2015), approximately 2.64 tons of SO2 were emitted by onroad mobile sources in all of Muscatine County (this includes areas within and outside of the nonattainment area). Nonroad mobile sources (which include non-road equipment, locomotives, commercial marine vessels, and aircraft) contributed approximately 1.99 tpy of SO2. Again, that estimate includes nonroad mobile sources across all of Muscatine County.

The state asserts that nonpoint (area) SO2 emissions were also relatively low, at approximately 18.73 tpy. Of that total, roughly half (8.92 tons) was associated with emissions mostly from prescribed fires. As with the mobile sectors, the nonpoint totals also represent sums across all of Muscatine County. The EPA agrees with the state's proposal that onroad, nonroad, and nonpoint sources in and near the Muscatine nonattainment area are adequately represented by background concentrations included in modeling analysis and that further consideration of these sectors is unnecessary. See section IV.E. Background Concentrations and section V. A. Emissions Inventory in this preamble for more detailed information.

D. Emission Limits

Section 172(c)(6) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date. See General Preamble at 13567-68.

Part of the review of state's attainment plan must address the use of these limits, both with respect to the general suitability of using such limits for the purpose of meeting the requirements of CAA § 172(c)(6) with respect to whether the particular limits included in the plan have been suitably demonstrated to provide for attainment. The first subsection that follows addresses the enforceability of the limits in the plan, and the second subsection that follows addresses in the limits in particular the longer term average limits (i.e., the 21-day average limit for MPW).

1. Enforceability

As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and 75 FR 35520, emission limitations, control measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by the state and EPA. Working with GPC, MPW, and Monsanto the state developed an implementable control strategy designed to ensure expeditious attainment of the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. The control strategy establishes source-specific control measures that include more stringent SO2 emissions limits, new control devices, and process changes. The state's nonattainment SIP includes these control measures with specific timetables for implementation, establishes minimum performance criteria, and provides schedules for completing verification processes. See section V. B. RACM/RACT in this preamble for additional information. New air construction permits issued to GPC, MPW, and Monsanto include emissions limits, timetables for compliance, and enforcement criteria and are the enforceable documents included in the state's nonattainment SIP that EPA is proposing to approve. As noted in the nonattainment SIP, the state has the authority to implement each of the permits. Each permit includes notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The facilities must, for example, notify the state when they initiate and when they complete construction. Each permit also contains performance testing (emissions testing) obligations with specific schedules, methods, and frequencies for compliance. Each performance test must be approved by the state and a testing protocol must be submitted to the state in advance of the compliance demonstration. Results of the tests must be submitted in writing to the state in the form of a comprehensive report within six weeks of the completion of any testing. Additionally, GPC, MPW, and Monsanto are major sources under the Title V operating permit program and must submit semi-annual monitoring reports by September 30 and March 31, and an annual compliance certification by March 31, of each year. The state also inspects Title V sources at a minimum of every two years. In summary, the state has a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations and to undertake follow-up for compliance and enforcement.

As noted in the state's May 26, 2016, submittal letter, Iowa was included in the agency's 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 (SSM SIP call) published June 12, 2015, (80 FR 33839). In the SSM SIP call, subrule 567—Iowa Administrate Code (IAC) 24.1(1) was found to be “substantially inadequate” because it provides that excess emissions during periods of startup and shutdown are not a violation of an emission standard if good practices for minimizing emissions are followed. Each construction permit the state requested be included in the SIP apart if its control strategy contains SSM language from the subrule that is subject to the SIP call (Condition 6 of each permit). As such the state is requested that EPA not act on permit Condition 6 of the included permits. EPA agrees that it would not be appropriate to approve Condition 6 of each permit into the SIP and propose the condition's exclusion.

EPA is proposing to determine that these control measures, and the permits that contain them, satisfy CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) requirements and 75 FR 35520. It should be noted that the emission limit established for MPW in the control strategy of the state's nonattainment plan relies on a pound/hour (lb/hr) limit expressed an averaging time (e.g. as 21-day average) across multiple units.9 In accordance with EPA policy, the 21-day average limit is set at a lower level than the emission rate used in the attainment demonstration; the relationship between these two values is discussed in more detail in the following section.

9 The MPW permit included as appendix C to the nonattainment SIP specifies that compliance with the emission standard of 1153 lb/hr of SO2 shall be demonstrated through the use a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) and shall be determined on a 21-day rolling average bases. The limit includes startup, shutdown and malfunction emissions. Compliance with the emission limit shall be demonstrated using the formula found in Permit Condition 15.8. The emission limit became effective January 1, 2017.

2. Longer Term Averaging

As discussed in the April 2014 guidance, and in section III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Term Averaging in this preamble, EPA has recommended that averaging times in SIP emission limits should not exceed the applicable NAAQS averaging time, in this case 1-hour, however, EPA has acknowledged that a 1-hr emission rate limit may be difficult to achieve at some facilities. As such EPA provided guidance for establishing longer term averaging limits based on a supportable downward adjustment of the critical emissions value. The critical emissions value is the 1-hr averaged emission rate that dispersion modeling predicts would attain the NAAQS.

The control strategy included in the state's nonattainment SIP allows MPW to meet a compliance formula based on a 21-day averaging period across multiple units running alone or in combination. The formula incorporates a weighting function derived from the modeling results of the individual units (Units 7, 8 and 9), and downward adjustments of the critical emissions values. A separate downward adjustment was calculated for each unit using five years of unit-specific CEMS data, 2010-2014; the state considered this data to be representative of the boilers' operations into the future, and reflect the fact that each unit is emitting from a separate stack. The 1-hour emissions value of 1,153 lbs/hr used in the formula incorporates the adjustment to a longer term limit according to the ratio of the 99th percentile 21-day average emission rate to the 99th percentile 1-hr emission rates from the CEMS data. Because the 1,153 lbs/hr value was derived from all 3 units operating together additional model runs were needed to ensure the formula was protective under other operating scenarios, with combinations of one or two units operating. The formula provides flexibility for MPW to run their three coal units alone or in combination in such a way that the NAAQS will be protected at all times. Because the units have different dispersion characteristics, the formula weighs each unit's individual emissions such that the critical modeled value in the formula is always protected.

To determine the longer term average limit, the state determined the individual variability of each unit from the 2010-2014 CEMS data as described above. The variability value ratios of the 99th percentile 21-day average and 99th percentile hourly values were 0.71, 0.90, 0.63 for the three units respectively. The state determined a critical value for each of these units individually using their respective variability and stack characteristics. In the first modeling scenario (the “All” run) the state determined the hourly critical values for Units 7,8,9 as 250 lbs/hr, 1000 lbs/hr, and 120 lbs/hr respectively, so 1,370 lbs/hr total from the 3 units. Applying the individual unit variability, the equivalent 21 day limits would be 177.5 lbs/hr, 900.0 lbs/hr, and 75.6 lbs/hr respectively which when added together is 1,153 lbs/hr, the value that becomes the basis of the compliance formula. The state then modeled 7 combinations of emissions scenarios using the individual unit stack characteristics that all demonstrated compliance with the NAAQS and accounted for individual variability of each unit. These scenarios consisted of 3 model runs where the individual units were operating alone and 4 model runs with various combinations of units operating. Each run had its own hourly critical modeled value demonstrating compliance and these 7 runs formed the basis for the weights in the formula to ensure 1,153 lbs/hr was always protective of all the individual critical values modeled. This provided modeled emission rates such that a weighted formula could be derived such that any combination of emissions from the three individual units would always be at or below the value of 1,153 lbs/hr as expressed in the formula. Because the stacks have different dispersion characteristics and the modeled scenarios have different critical emission values, the formula derived contains different weights or multipliers for each unit's actual hourly emissions, but the weights are such that no individual unit operating alone or a combination of units will cause a NAAQS violation as long as the formula criteria as expressed in the permit are met.10 Table 1 shows that during each operational scenario at MPW, combined with the control strategies for GPC and Monsanto, the current maximum allowable permitted emission rates from LGS, and background concentrations, will result in attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

10 The formula for MPW, as specified in their permit is as follows:

“The owner or operator shall maintain a file of computations to show the total hourly emission level for SO2. The owner or operator shall use the total hourly SO2 emission rates to calculate and record the average SO2 emission rate for each calendar day. Effective January 1, 2017, the owner or operator shall use the daily average SO2 emission rates to demonstrate compliance with the 21-day rolling average as calculated below: SO2 = 2.03*(Unit 7) + 0.84*(Unit 8) + 1.22*(Unit 9) Where, SO2 = total emissions, in pounds per hour, of sulfur dioxide from Unit 7, Unit 8 and Unit 9

Unit 7 = 24-hour average sulfur dioxide emission rate, lb/hr, for Unit 7

Unit 8 = 24-hour average sulfur dioxide emission rate, lb/hr, for Unit 8

Unit 9 = 24-hour average sulfur dioxide emission rate, lb/hr, for Unit 9.

Table 1—Cumulative Modeling Results With Each MPW Operating Scenario MPW operating scenario Cumulative model result (μg/m3) 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
  • (μg/m3)
  • All 182.76 196 U9 Off 182.71 U8 Off 183.66 U7 Off 182.88 U7 Only 183.96 U8 Only 181.86 U9 Only 187.78

    Based on a review of the state's submittal, the EPA believes that the 21-day average limit for MPW provides a suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit for this source. The state has used a suitable data base in an appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment, yielding an emission limit formula that has comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limit that the state determined would otherwise have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the 21-day average limit allows occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the state's limit compensates by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit. For reasons described above and explained in more detail in EPA's April 2014 guidance, EPA finds that appropriately set longer term average limits provide a reasonable basis by which nonattainment plans may provide for attainment. Based on its review of this general information as well as the particular information in state's plan, the EPA finds that the 21-day average limit formula for MPW in combination with other limitations in the state's plan, will provide for attainment of the NAAQS.

    E. Background Concentrations

    The state reviewed its statewide SO2 monitoring network to determine an appropriate background monitoring location- the Davenport SO2 monitoring site. As noted by the state, the ideal background location chosen represents the contributions from all sources not explicitly modeled. Because the monitoring locations in Muscatine, IA are impacted significantly by sources that were included in the modeling analysis, those monitors were eliminated as an option to represent the background concentrations in the area. Of the remaining monitor locations, two are situated adjacent to industrialized areas (Cedar Rapids and Clinton), and, as such, would likely be an overestimate of the concentrations caused by background sources. The state determined that the Des Moines and Lake Sugema monitors were impacted by less SO2 emissions than what would be represented by the background for the Muscatine nonattainment area—and, as such, would likely be an underestimation of the concentrations of SO2 caused by background sources.11

    11 The Des Moines monitor is approximately 5 km from the nearest SO2 source. The county emissions are approximately 163 tpy. The Lake Sugema monitor is more than 10 km away from the nearest SO2 source. The state's nonattainment SIP indicates that are no reported major or minor sources of SO2 emissions in the county.

    The state determined that the Davenport SO2 monitoring location was appropriate for estimating background concentrations for the following reasons: (1) The Davenport monitor is the nearest location to the nonattainment area (other than those monitors located in Muscatine already excluded); (2) the Davenport monitor is near a moderately industrialized area, but is not situated adjacent to those sources of emissions; (3) the Davenport monitor is in a county with a moderate amount of SO2 emissions; and (4) using the Davenport monitor is consistent with the meteorological data used for the analysis. For these reasons the state believed that the Davenport monitoring location could account for the sources screened out of the control strategy such as emissions from natural sources, major and minor point sources not included in the analysis, mobile (onroad and nonroad) sources, and nonpoint sources.

    The state utilized temporally varying background concentrations by hour and season from the Davenport SO2 monitoring location to account for contributions to the predicted impacts from background SO2 sources. To account for seasonal and diurnal variations in the background levels, the state based the background concentration on the average diurnal and seasonal concentration pattern observed at the Davenport monitor during the years 2011-2013. For the years 2011-2013, the 99th percentile monitor concentration was calculated for each hour of the day by season and then averaged across the three years.12

    12 The EPA's SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards Designations Modeling TAD describes an appropriate methodology of calculating temporally varying background monitored concentrations by hour of day and season (excluding periods when the source in question is expected to impact the monitored concentration). The methodology is to use the 99th percentile concentration for each hour of the day by season and average across 3 years, excluding periods when the dominant source(s) are influencing the monitored concentration (i.e., 99th percel1tile, or 4th highest, concentrations for hour l for January or winter, 99th percentile concentrations for hour 2 for January or winter, etc.).

    The state also averaged the 2011-2013 design values for Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Des Moines, and Lake Sugema to determine if that number, 10.5 ppb, would be appropriate as background. The state called this the Tier 1 value. The Tier 1 value of 10.5 ppb is higher than all but one of the seasonal/diurnal concentrations. This shows that the use of the Tier 1 value for all hours and seasons would have been too high to represent the variable background concentrations. The EPA agrees with the state's proposal that the method of using temporally varying background monitor concentrations by hour and season from the Davenport monitoring location, as it is calculated from the 99th percentile, is appropriate.

    F. Summary of Results

    The modeling analysis was conducted in two phases. The first phase (Phase 1) of the analysis was a screening analysis to determine the sources that needed to be included in the control strategy analysis. The second phase (Phase 2) of the analysis was used to develop the control strategy and included all significant sources identified in Phase 1.

    1. Phase 1—Preliminary Analysis

    This phase was accomplished by modeling actual emissions from GPC, MPW, Monsanto, and LGS and allowable emissions from SSAB and Gerdau and then determining the percentage of predicted NAAQS exceedances within the nonattainment area to which each facility significantly contributed. In this way, the state determined that GPC contributed to 100 percent of the NAAQS exceedances, MPW contributed to approximately 25 percent of the NAAQS exceedances, Monsanto contributed to approximately 1 percent of the NAAQS exceedances, and LGS contributed to approximately 5 percent of the NAAQS exceedances. Both SSAB and Gerdau each modeled less than a 1 percent contribution to the NAAQS exceedance days within the nonattainment area. Therefore, only GPC, MPW, Monsanto and LGS were determined to have enough potential contribution to NAAQS exceedances to be evaluated further.13

    13 The LGS facility is located immediately south of the nonattainment area. During the designations process, this source was shown to be insignificant during predicted exceedances at the Musser Park monitor, but as it was possible that the source could cause a concentration gradient in the vicinity of the southern portion of the nonattainment area, it was included in the analysis.

    The state then further subdivided the sources by classifying the significant contributors as either a primary or a secondary contributor. If the facility's significant contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was greater than or equal to half of the total concentration (minus background) it was considered a primary contributor. If the facility's contribution was less than half of the total concentration, but still more than the Significant Impact Level (SIL) it was considered a secondary contributor.14

    14 Per EPA's August 23, 2010, “Guidance Concerning the Implementation of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program”, the SIL is 3 ppb. The EPA plans “to undertake rulemaking to adopt a 1-hour SO2 SIL value. However, until such time as a 1-hour SO2 SIL is defined in the PSD regulations, we are providing an interim SIL of 3 ppb, which we intend to use as a screening tool for completing the required air quality analyses for the new 1-hour SO2 SIL NAAQS under the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. We are also making the interim SIL available to States with EPA-approved implementation plans containing a PSD program to use at their discretion.” The SIL remains an interim SIL until rulemaking is complete.

    GPC was identified as a primary contributor to all predicted NAAQS exceedances within the nonattainment area. GPC's max potential contribution was estimated as 3,180 µg/m3 (or approximately 1,223 ppb).15 GPC's contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was greater than or equal to half of the total concentration (minus background) 100 percent of the time.

    15 To convert from µg/m3 to ppb, the µg/m3 value was divided by 2.6.

    MPW, Monsanto and LGS were identified as secondary contributors. MPW's max potential contribution was estimated as 107 µg/m3 (or approximately 41 ppb). MPW's contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was less than half of the total concentration, but still more than SIL (minus background) 26 percent of the time. Monsanto's max potential contribution was estimated as 28 µg/m3 (or approximately 11 ppb). Monsanto's contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was less than half of the total concentration, but still more than SIL (minus background) less than 1 percent of the time. LGS's maximum potential contribution was estimated as 59 µg/m3 (or approximately 22.7 ppb). LGS's contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was less than half of the total concentration, but still more than SIL (minus background) 2 percent of the time. As such, only GPC, MPW, Monsanto and LGS were included in the second phase of the analysis.

    2. Phase 2—Control Strategy Development

    Sources identified in Phase 1 (GPC, MPW, Monsanto, and LGS) as being significant contributors were modeled at their maximum permitted allowable emission rates. Using the process summarized below, more restrictive maximum permitted emission rates were developed where necessary to ensure modeled attainment.

    To start its Phase 2 analysis, the state provided GPC with a model input file that included its emission units as well as the exceedance receptors to which it contributed. The state's nonattainment SIP submittal indicates that GPC reviewed the input data for accuracy and then mitigated all modeled exceedances caused by the GPC facility alone.

    The remaining facilities (MPW, Monsanto, and LGS) were then added to the analysis with their maximum permitted allowable emission rates and the cumulative impacts were determined across the entire nonattainment area. According to the state's nonattainment SIP submittal, the remaining predicted exceedances were then discussed with Monsanto and MPW. As a result of those discussions, additional control measures were developed for those facilities and are incorporated in construction permits submitted as part of the SIP revision. See section V.B. in this preamble for more information regarding the control measures.

    Monsanto proposed to decrease the emission rate for Boiler 8 at its facility to mitigate exceedances just north of its property. MPW proposed multiple model scenarios with combined operation of Units 7, 8, and 9. Regardless of the operational scenario, the unit/units were modeled at an equation cap of 1,153 lb/hr SO2. The model results varied depending on which combination of boilers was running. Each of the modeling scenarios (with background included) resulted in concentrations below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The highest modeled SO2 concentration was 187.87 ug/m3 which included the operation of just Unit 9 at MPW. See section IV.D.2. Longer Term Averaging limits, in this preamble, for more discussion of the equation used to determine compliance with the NAAQS for each MPW modeling scenario.

    These results indicate that the controls established in the construction permits for MPW, GPC and Monsanto result in attainment of the NAAQS, and as such, additional controls were not necessary for LGS in order for the area to attain. EPA agrees with the state's determination that its control strategy analysis results in modeled concentrations throughout the nonattainment area that are at or below 75 ppb/196.4 ug/m3. Based upon monitoring data discussed in section V.B. RACM/RACT in this preamble, EPA expects that the Muscatine area will attain by the attainment date, August 5, 2018.

    V. Review of Other Plan Requirements A. Emissions Inventory and the Quantification of Emissions

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area, including such periodic revisions as the Administrator may determine necessary to assure that the requirements of this part are met. Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan expressly identify and quantify the emissions, if any, of any such pollutant or pollutants which will be allowed, in accordance with section 703(a)(1)(B) of the CAA, from the construction and operation of major new or modified stationary sources in each such area. The plan shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the emissions quantified for this purpose will be consistent with the achievement of reasonable further progress and will not interfere with attainment of the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard by the applicable attainment date.

    The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to: (1) estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. As noted above, the state must develop and submit to EPA a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO2 emissions in each nonattainment area, as well as any sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area. See the April 2014 guidance. Additional emission inventory information was discussed in section IV.C Emissions Data in this preamble. A brief summary is provided later in this action.

    The base year inventory establishes a baseline that is used to evaluate emissions reductions achieved by the control strategy and to assess reasonable further progress requirements. The state's nonattainment SIP noted that, at the time, the most recent and available triennial inventory year was 2011 and the stated found that it served as a suitable base year. Table 2 provides the 2011 SO2 emissions inventory data for sources within and outside of the nonattainment the area (data have been rounded to the nearest whole number).

    Table 2—Base Line Emission Inventory for the Muscatine, IA Nonattainment Area Facility 2011 SO2 emissions (tpy) Base Line Emissions Inventory for the Muscatine NAA Inside of the NAA Grain Processing Corporation 10,810 Muscatine Power and Water 2,374 Monsanto 537 HNI Corp.—North Campus <1 HNI Corp.—Central Campus <1 H.J. Heinz L.P. <1 Union Tank Car Co. <1 Outside of the NAA Louisa Generating Station 7,304 All of Muscatine County Onroad Mobile 3 Nonroad Mobile 2 Area Sources 10 Fires 9 Total 21,049

    Although not part of the state's discussion of its 2011 baseline emissions inventory, the state's nonattainment SIP also provides 2013 SO2 data for Gerdau and SSAB in Muscatine County and Linwood and Lafarge in Scott County. However, the state provided this as a sum for the sources by county (e.g., the sum of Gerdau and SSAB was 254 tpy and the sum of Linwood and Lafarge was 1,539 tpy). Gerdau and SSAB are approximately 8-9 km away from the nonattainment boundary and Linwood and Lafarge are approximately 20 km away from the nonattainment area boundary.

    As already noted, the state's nonattainment SIP must identify and quantify the emissions which will be allowed from the construction and operation of major new or modified stationary sources in the area (see CAA § 172(c)(4)). The state must demonstrate that such emissions will be consistent with RFP requirements and will not interfere with attainment of the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. These requirements are met by the states preconstruction permitting program and implementation of the Nonattainment New Source Review Rules (NNSR). See section C. Nonattainment New Source Review in this preamble for more information.

    According to EPA's April 2014 SO2 guidance, the SIP should also include a projected attainment year inventory that includes estimated emissions for all emission sources of SO2 that were determined to have an impact on the affected nonattainment area for the year in which the area is expected to attain the standard, consistent with the attainment demonstration. The inventory should reflect projected emissions for the attainment year for all SO2 sources in the nonattainment area. The state's nonattainment SIP provided a projected inventory only for the controlled sources, as provided in table 3. The inventory was developed assuming each SO2 source operates 8,760 hours per year at its permitted maximum allowable emission rate.16

    16 The projections don't consider operational, physical, supply/demand, or other factors that typically curb actual emissions to values below the maximum permitted allowable rate. There is potential for the actual attainment-year emissions to be lower than those in Table 2.

    Table 3—Projected Allowable Annual SO2 Emissions From Control Strategy Sources Facility 2018 SO2
  • emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Projected 2018 Emissions for the Controlled Sources Grain Processing Corporation 167 Muscatine Power and Water 5,051 Monsanto 1,196

    The EPA is proposing to determine that the state has met the requirements of CAA § 172(c)(3) and 172(c)(4).

    B. RACM/RACT

    CAA § 172(c)(1) requires that the state's nonattainment plan provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of RACT) and shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The state's plan for attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Muscatine nonattainment area is based on a variety of control measures at GPC, MPW and Monsanto. Those measures were included in the state's nonattainment SIP as construction permits.17

    17 Appendix B, C and D of the state's nonattainment SIP contain the Federally enforceable air construction permits that define RACM/RACT requirements. The RACM/RACT limits taken to comply with the NAAQS are specifically noted in each permit via footnotes in the permits.

    To ensure the SO2 NAAQS is attained, GPC must install additional scrubbers, comply with new and more stringent SO2 emission limits, and implement process modifications designed to ), andreduce SO2 emissions across numerous downstream sources. Table 4-1 of the state's nonattainment SIP lists all the sources included in the control strategy, contains descriptions of the control measures, and provides effective dates. Source specific permitted allowable emission rates, compliance and monitoring obligations, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and implementation deadlines (where not immediately effectively upon permit issuance) are detailed in each construction permit included with the SIP submittal (appendix B of the state's nonattainment plan). The GPC control strategy includes measures at 52 emission points (EP) at the facility. In summary, those measures include EP0001.0 (Power House Boilers 1-4 and 6-7) is subject to a more stringent SO2 emission limit based on natural gas combustion; EP546.0 is subject to a more stringent, source-specific SO2 limit of .0034 lb/hr; a requirement to continue to add sodium bisulfate to the steep water instead of sulfur dioxide in order to reduce SO2 emissions from the steeping operations and downstream processes; the establishment of source specific SO2 emission limits at 43 EPs and the required installation of scrubbers on EP015.0 (Germ Drier Nos. 1 and 2), EP097.0 (Germ Drier No. 3), EP126.0 (Germ Drier No. 4), EP200N (Corn Steep Tank Nos. 1-30 and the North Wet Corn Drag), EP200S (Corn Steep Tank Nos. 31-62 and the South Wet Corn Drag), and EP279.0 (Wet Milling Nos. 1-6). The state expects the installation of the scrubbers to reduce SO2 emissions by up to 90 percent from those units.18

    18 The state's estimation of a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions is based off of the control efficiency readily achieved by the types of scrubbers being installed.

    While the scrubber installations will not be completed by January 1, 2017, the desired target date discussed in EPA's April 2014 guidance, the scrubbers will be operational as expeditiously as practicable. Based on permitted requirements, three of the six new scrubbers must be in operation no later than August 30, 2017, with the final scrubber operational by March 31, 2018. The installation timetable accommodates factors such as demolition and construction schedules, structural modifications, ductwork design, and the addition of scrubber water treatment capacity. The state asserts in its nonattainment plan that the scrubber installation timeline will not delay or prevent timely attainment of the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS.

    It should also be noted that, on July 14, 2015, GPC converted all of its coal-fired boilers to natural gas. The state estimates that the fuel switch will result in a 96 percent reduction in the facility's total SO2 emissions. In terms of 2011 data, this fuel switch eliminated 10,374 tons of SO2 emissions. The state believes, and the EPA agrees, that the fuel conversion from coal to natural gas in GPC's boilers has significantly reduced measured ambient SO2 concentrations in Muscatine, as noted in Table 4. Based on existing air quality improvements the state projects that monitored attainment will be achieved by the attainment date. Appendix B of the state's nonattainment SIP contains the Federally enforceable air construction permits that define GPC's RACM/RACT requirements.

    Table 4—Air Monitoring Data From the Musser Park Monitor Monitor
  • location
  • 1-hr SO2 NAAQS
  • (ppb)
  • Design values (ppb) 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 99th Percentile daily max 1-hr SO2 concentrations (ppb) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
    Musser Park 75 217 194 158 113 248 224 179 180 116 45

    MPW is subject to several Federal programs that directly or indirectly affect SO2 emissions, including the Acid Rain provisions of title IV of the CAA, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and the CAA section 112 Maximum Achievable Control Technology regulations more commonly known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. However, the state did not rely on these Federal programs alone to address SO2 emissions. Instead, as per the states control strategy, MPW will comply with new SO2 emission limits that provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The control measures, described in table 4-2 of the state's nonattainment SIP, account for seven possible operating scenarios involving the three coal-fired boilers (Units 7, 8, and 9). Permit No. 74-A-175-S3, issued to the facility in 2013, shows the SO2 emission limit for Units 7 and 8 was a combined maximum of 2,772 lb/hr. Permit No. 80-A-191-P2, issued to the facility in 2013, shows the SO2 emission limit for Unit 9 was 0.56 lb/MMBtu (a maximum daily average). Permit No. 80-A-191-P4, issued to the facility in 2016 as part of the control strategy of the state's nonattainment SIP, shows the combined SO2 emissions from Units 7-9 must be less than 1,153 lbs/hr.

    The control strategy for MPW also addresses emission reductions from EP60 (Auxiliary Boiler). A permit issued to the facility in 2013, Permit No. 13-A-152, for the Auxiliary Boiler required that SO2 emissions be limited to limited 0.44 lbs/MMBtu (expressed as the average of 3 runs) when burning fuel oil, and to 500 ppm by volume when burning natural gas or propane.19 20 The permit issued to the facility in 2016, as part of the control strategy, Permit No. 13-A-152-S1, requires that the SO2 emissions be limited to 0.45 lb/hr and that the sulfur content of the distillate fuel oil combusted in the unit not exceed 15 ppm. Appendix C of the state's nonattainment SIP contains the Federally enforceable air construction permits that define MPW's RACM/RACT requirements. These permits are effective January 1, 2017.

    19 The unit's 0.44 lbs/MMBtu emission rate is a Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER).

    20 The limit of 500 ppm by volume is from state rule.

    The control measures developed for Monsanto, described in table 4-3 of the state's nonattainment SIP, establish lower emission limits on two sources—EP-195 (Boiler #8) and EP-234 (CAC Process Flare). The Boiler #8 control strategy includes a more stringent SO2 emission limit. A 2007 permit issued to the facility Permit No. 82-A-092-P9, limited the unit's SO2 emissions to 292.5 lb/hr. The permit issued to the facility in 2015, Permit No. 82-A-092-P11, as part of the control strategy, limits the unit's SO2 emissions to 273 lb/hr.21

    21 The unit also has a 1.95 lbs/MMBtu based on a 3-hr rolling average limit is a Best Available Control Technology limit.

    The control strategy for the CAC Process Flare includes new SO2 emission limit that restricts the unit's fuel use to natural gas only. A 2012 permit issued to the facility, Permit No. 88-A-001-S2, limited the unit's SO2 emissions to 500 ppm by volume. The permit issued to the facility in 2015, Permit No. 88-A-001-S3, as part of the control strategy, limits the unit to burning only natural gas and the unit's SO2 emissions to 0.02 lb/hr. Appendix D of the state's nonattainment SIP contains the Federally enforceable air construction permits that define Monsanto's RACM/RACT requirements. These permits are effective May 13, 2015.

    The state has determined that these measures suffice to provide for attainment the attainment date, August 5, 2018. EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the state has satisfied the requirement in CAA § 172(c)(1) to adopt and submit all RACM as needed to attain the standards as expeditiously as practicable.

    C. Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)

    Section 172(c)(5) requires that the state's nonattainment plan provisions shall require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area, in accordance with section CAA § 173. EPA approved the state's nonattainment new source review rules on May 15, 2014 (79 FR 27763). These rules provide for appropriate new source review for SO2 sources undergoing construction or major modification in the Muscatine nonattainment area without need for modification of the approved rules. Therefore, EPA concludes that the requirements of CAA § 172(c)(5) have been met.

    D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

    Section 172(c)(2) requires that nonattainment plans include provisions addressing reasonable further progress (RFP). Reasonable further progress is defined in CAA § 171(1) as: “. . . such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part [part D] or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.

    As discussed in EPA's April 2014 guidance, this definition is most appropriate for pollutants that are emitted by numerous and diverse sources, where the relationship between any individual source and overall air quality is not explicitly quantified, and where NAAQS attainment requires inventory-wide emissions reductions. The SO2 NAAQS presents special circumstances because there are usually a limited number of well-defined sources affecting the area's air quality and any emission control measures commonly result in swift improvements that typically occur in one step. As noted in the state's nonattainment SIP, the EPA has interpreted that RFP is best construed as “adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule” in previous rulemaking.22

    22 See 74 FR 13547 (April 16, 1992).

    As previously noted in section V.B. RACT/RACM, in this preamble, the SO2 emission limits and application of control technologies established for Monsanto (effective on May 13, 2015), MPW (effective January 1, 2017) and for GPC occur on reasonable timelines.

    The state asserts that this plan requires that affected sources implement appropriate control measures as expeditiously as practicable in order to ensure attainment of the standard by the applicable attainment date. The state concluded that its plan therefore provides for RFP in accordance with the approach to RFP described in EPA's guidance. EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the plan provides for RFP as required by CAA § 172(c)(2).

    E. Contingency Measures

    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or the Administrator.

    EPA's April 2014 guidance describes special features of SO2 planning that influence the suitability of alternative means of addressing the requirement in section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures for SO2, such that in particular an appropriate means of satisfying this requirement is for the state to have a comprehensive enforcement program that identifies sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement.

    The state's nonattainment SIP provides that, after full implementation of the control strategy, contingency measures will be triggered if monitored ambient air quality records 1-hr SO2 NAAQS violation in the nonattainment area, or if the nonattainment area fails to meet RFP. If triggered, the state will evaluate culpabilities for the violation and will plan to complete the investigation within 3 months of the trigger. Where the investigation concludes unequivocally that SO2 emissions from one of the three sources in the control strategy is the cause of the recorded 1-hr SO2 NAAQS violation or failure to achieve RFP, the state will conduct a compliance evaluation and establish orders for the abatement or control of air pollution or make changes to the GPC, MPW, or Monsanto construction permits. Orders or construction permits will be issued within approximately 9 months of completion of the investigation and could include fuel switches, addition of controls, curtailment of production, reducing boiler operating loads, or other appropriate measures necessary to mitigate the violation.

    EPA proposes to approve the state's plan for meeting the contingency measure requirement of CAA § 172(c)(9).

    VI. Additional Elements of the State's Submittal A. Compliance With Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA

    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires nonattainment SIPs to meet the applicable provisions of CAA § 110(a)(2). While the provisions of 110(a)(2) address various topics, EPA's past determinations suggest that only the § 110(a)(2) criteria which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are relevant to § 172(c)(7). This nonattainment SIP submittal satisfies all applicable CAA § 110(a)(2) criteria, as evidenced by the state's nonattainment new source review program which addresses 110(a)(2)(I), the included control strategy, and the associated emissions limits which are relevant to 110(a)(2)(A). In addition, on July 26, 2013, Iowa submitted to EPA an infrastructure SIP to demonstrate that the state has the necessary plans, programs, and statutory authority to implement the requirements of section 110 of the CAA as they pertain to the 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. EPA will take action on the state's SO2 infrastructure SIP in a separate rulemaking. The EPA is proposing to conclude that the state has meet the requirements of CAA § 172(c)(7).

    B. Equivalent Techniques

    Section 172(c)(8) of the CAA states that upon application by any state, the Administrator may allow the use of equivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures, unless the Administrator determines that the proposed techniques are, in the aggregate, less effective than the methods specified by the Administrator.

    The state's nonattainment SIP indicates that it followed existing regulations, guidance, and standard practices when conducting modeling, preparing the emissions inventories, and implementing its planning procedures. Therefore, the state did not use or request approval of alternative or equivalent techniques as allowed under of the CAA and the EPA is proposing to conclude that the state's nonattainment SIP meets the requirements of CAA § 172(c)(8).

    VII. EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the nonattainment SIP submission, which the state submitted to EPA on May 26, 2016, for attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the Muscatine nonattainment area and for meeting other nonattainment area planning requirements. This SO2 attainment plan includes the state's attainment demonstration for the Muscatine nonattainment area. The nonattainment area plan also addresses requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, base-year and projection-year emission inventories, and contingency measures.

    The EPA has determined that the state's nonattainment plan meets applicable requirements of the section 172 of the CAA (107(c)(1) through (9). EPA's analysis is discussed in this proposed rulemaking.

    The EPA is taking public comments for thirty days following the publication of this proposed action in the Federal Register. We will take all comments into consideration in our final action.

    VIII. 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 Iowa Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    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.23

    23 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 9, 2017. Edward H. Chu, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

    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 Q—Iowa 2. Amend § 52.820 by: a. In the table in paragraph (d), adding entries “(112)” through “(169)” in numerical order; and b. In the table in paragraph (e), adding an entry “(47)” in numerical order.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 52.820 Identification of plan.

    (d)* * *

    EPA-Approved Iowa Source-Specific Orders/Permits Name of source Order/permit No. State effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * (112) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 95-A-374-S4 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (113) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-078 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (114) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 79-A-194-S2 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (115) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 71-A-067-S4 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (116) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 75-A-087-S1 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (117) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 72-A-199-S2 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (118) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 74-A-014-S1 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (119) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 74-A-015-S2 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (120) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 75-A-353-S2 7/6/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (121) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 79-A-195-S2 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (122) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 80-A-149-S5 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (123) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 80-A-150-S5 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (124) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 85-A-031-S2 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (125) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 85-A-032-S2 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (126) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 85-A-038-P1 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (127) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 85-A-135-P1 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (128) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 90-A-111-S1 7/6/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (129) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 91-A-068-S2 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (130) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 93-A-110-P1 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (131) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 92-A-383-S2 7/6/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (132) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 92-A-385-S1 7/6/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (133) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 94-A-055-S1 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (134) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 94-A-061-S1 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (135) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 02-A-781-S2 7/6/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (136) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 02-A-782-S2 7/6/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (137) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 09-A-482-S2 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (138) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 10-A-563-S1 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (139) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-200 3/25/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (140) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-201 3/25/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (141) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-202 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (142) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-203 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (143) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-204 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (144) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-205 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (145) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-206 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (146) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-207 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (147) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-208 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (148) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-209 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (149) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-480 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (150) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-481 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (151) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-482 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (152) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-483 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (153) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-213 1/26/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (154) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-484 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (155) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-485 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (156) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-486 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (157) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-326 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (158) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 03-A-471-S1 7/6/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (159) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 05-A-926-S4 2/15/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (160) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 06-A-1261-S1 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (161) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 11-A-338-S1 7/6/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (162) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-354 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (163) Grain Processing Corporation Permit No. 15-A-199 12/10/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (164) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-152-S1 3/2/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (165) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 74-A-175-S4 3/2/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (166) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 95-A-373-P3 3/2/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (167) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-191-P3 3/2/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (168) Monsanto Permit No. 82-A-092-P11 5/13/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7]. (169) Monsanto Permit No. 88-A-001-S3 5/13/15 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] 2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7].

    (e)* * *

    EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * (47) 2010 1-hr SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment Plan A portion of Muscatine County 5/26/16 [date of final publication in the Federal Register] and [Federal Register citation] EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416; FRL-XXXX-Region 7].
    [FR Doc. 2017-17736 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133, FRL-9966-26-OAR] RIN 2060-AS79 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 8, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins (APR). Subsequently, the EPA received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. The EPA is reconsidering and requesting public comment on issues related to the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for continuous process vents (CPVs) at existing affected sources. The EPA is proposing to revise the MACT standard for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources based on hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions test data for back-end CPVs at existing sources for this source category submitted by petitioners. The EPA is also soliciting comments regarding the need to revise the standard for front-end CPVs at existing sources, and to extend the compliance date for the proposed revised emission limit for back-end CPVs at existing sources. Additionally, the EPA is proposing requirements for storage vessels at new and existing sources during periods when an emission control system used to control vents on fixed roof tanks is undergoing planned routine maintenance. The EPA is seeking comments only on the four issues specifically addressed in this notice: proposed revised back-end CPV MACT standards for existing sources, whether the EPA should modify the front-end CPV MACT standards for existing sources, whether the EPA should extend the compliance date for the proposed revised back-end CPV MACT standards for existing sources, and the proposed work practice standards for storage vessels during planned routine maintenance of emission control systems. In this rulemaking, the EPA is not reopening or requesting comment on any other aspects of the 2014 final amendments to the NESHAP for the Manufacture of APR, including other issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of the 2014 rule. The EPA estimates this proposal, if finalized as proposed, would reduce compliance costs to this industry by $2.1 million per year, compared to a revised cost estimate of the MACT standard as amended in 2014.

    DATES:

    Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.

    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by September 7, 2017, then we will hold a public hearing on September 25, 2017 at EPA Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. If a public hearing is requested, then we will provide details about the public hearing on our Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/manufacture-aminophenolic-resins-national-emission-standards. The EPA does not intend to publish another notice in the Federal Register announcing any updates on the request for a public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the public hearing will be September 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from http://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this proposed action, please contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1185; fax number: (919) 541-0246; email address: [email protected] For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building, Mail Code 2227A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7027; fax number: (202) 564-0050; and email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and will be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information you claim as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 2.

    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any electronic storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. Multiple acronyms and terms are used in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

    APR Amino/phenolic resin CAA Clean Air Act CBI Confidential Business Information CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPV Continuous process vent EPA Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register HAP Hazardous air pollutants HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP ICR Information collection request lb Pound MACT Maximum achievable control technology NESHAP National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget PRD Pressure relief device ppmv Parts per million by volume RTO Regenerative thermal oxidizer RTR Residual risk and technology review UFC Urea formaldehyde concentrate UPL Upper predictive limit

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

    I. General Information A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action? B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed reconsideration action? B. What are the issues raised by petitioners about the standards for CPVs at existing affected sources? III. Proposed Emissions Standards for Back-End CPVs at Existing Sources A. What data were collected for back-end CPVs on resin spray dryers? B. What analyses were conducted for back-end CPVs? C. Should the EPA provide facilities more time to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV standards? IV. What other changes or issues does this action address? A. Should the EPA promulgate a separate standard for front-end CPVs at existing sources? B. Proposed work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing sources during planned routine maintenance of emission control systems V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and Participation VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7607(d)(7)(B)).

    B. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include, but are not limited to, facilities having a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325211. Facilities with this NAICS code are described as plastics material and resin manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin types.

    To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1400 of subpart OOO. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of the NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/manufacture-aminophenolic-resins-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of this proposal at this same Web site. Other key technical documents related to this proposal will be available in the docket when the Federal Register version of the proposal is posted to the docket. Only the version as published in the Federal Register will represent the official EPA proposal.

    II. Background A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed reconsideration action?

    On October 8, 2014, the EPA completed the residual risk and technology review (RTR) of the January 20, 2000, APR MACT standards (65 FR 3276), and published its final rule amending the NESHAP for the APR Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO. That action also amended the NESHAP for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production source category and the Polycarbonate Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (79 FR 60898). The 2014 final rule established MACT standards for the first time for CPVs at existing affected sources in the APR Production source category. The 2014 final rule also removed exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; clarified provisions pertaining to open-ended valves and lines; added monitoring requirements for pressure relief devices (PRDs); and added requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results.

    The October 2014 amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO, promulgated emissions limits for previously unregulated HAP emissions from CPVs at existing affected sources, without distinguishing between back-end and front-end CPVs. The standard of 0.95 kilograms of organic HAP per megagram (1.9 pounds (lb) of total organic HAP per ton) of resin produced is codified at 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(3) and currently applies to existing affected source back-end and front-end CPVs.

    Following promulgation of the October 8, 2014, final rule, the EPA received three petitions for reconsideration pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The petitions were submitted by the Sierra Club, Tembec BTLSR (“Tembec”), and Georgia-Pacific LLC (“Georgia-Pacific”). The petitions are available for review in the rulemaking docket (see Docket Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0077, EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0076, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0072, respectively). On March 27, 2015, the EPA issued letters to the petitioners granting reconsideration of the final rule to address at least the following petitioners' claims: that the public was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment on the MACT floor analysis, supporting data and resulting emission standards for CPVs at existing sources; and that the requirements associated with emissions from PRDs should be reconsidered.1 These letters are also available in the rulemaking docket (see Docket Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0075, EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0073, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0074, respectively).

    1 A petitioner requested another change in the rule language regarding planned routine maintenance of emission control systems used to reduce HAP emissions from storage vessels. Although this issue was not addressed in the March 2015 letters granting reconsideration, the EPA has reconsidered the storage vessel requirements and is addressing these requirements in this proposal. See section IV of this preamble for more details.

    The Agency is now proposing revised emissions standards for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources and is proposing alternative work practice standards for storage vessels during periods of planned routine maintenance of emission control systems on fixed roof tanks at new and existing affected APR production sources. The EPA is requesting public comments on these proposed standards. The EPA is also asking for comments on whether it is necessary to establish a new compliance date for the proposed revised back-end CPV limits at existing sources (if they are promulgated), and on whether revisions are needed to the existing source CPV limits as they apply to front-end CPVs. At this time, the EPA is not proposing any actions pertaining to its grant of reconsideration on the PRD issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration. The EPA intends to address those issues separately in a future action and is not requesting or accepting comment on issues related to PRDs.

    B. What are the issues raised by petitioners about the standards for CPVs at existing affected sources? 1. Opportunity To Comment on Final Production-Based Standards for CPVs at Existing Affected Sources

    During the review of the APR NESHAP, the EPA determined that there were no applicable MACT standards for CPVs located at existing affected sources, and, therefore, in the January 9, 2014 (79 FR 1676), RTR proposal for the category, the EPA proposed first-time MACT standards, based on the MACT floor, for those CPVs as follows:

    • Reduce organic HAP by 85 percent or more; or

    • Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) when using a combustion control device; or

    • Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 50 ppmv when using a non-combustion control device.

    During the comment period on the proposal, commenters provided the EPA with information showing that, rather than the two existing affected sources in the category with CPVs (specifically, CPVs on resin spray dryers) that the EPA had identified at proposal, there are four existing affected sources with a total of six CPVs (all on resin spray dryers). In addition, commenters stated that the EPA should calculate uncontrolled production-based emission rates based on 5 years of production, taking variability in emissions between resin types into account. Commenters provided the EPA with HAP emissions data and resin production data for the previous 5 years during the comment period.

    The EPA considered the additional data submitted during the comment period in calculating the MACT floor, and determined that it was appropriate to finalize a production-based limit of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced for CPVs at existing affected sources (see 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(3)). The EPA discussed the determination of the MACT floor in a memorandum available in the rulemaking docket (Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0053). The final rule was promulgated on October 8, 2014 (79 FR 60898).

    Petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific each own resin spray dryers (back-end CPVs) regulated by the NESHAP for existing affected sources. The back-end CPVs are currently subject to the finalized limit of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. Tembec's and Georgia-Pacific's petitions claim they did not have an opportunity to comment on the MACT floor analysis and emissions standard in the final rule. While they stated in the petitions that they believe a production-based limit is appropriate, they claimed they did not get an opportunity to comment on how the EPA would use the data they provided in analyses conducted to determine the MACT floor level of control.

    2. MACT Floor Determination for Back-End CPVs at Existing Affected Sources

    The Tembec and Georgia-Pacific petitions stated that the production-based emissions limit in the 2014 final rule of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced was not achievable for back-end CPVs, and they expressed concern over the data and calculation methodology used to set the HAP emissions standard for CPVs at existing affected sources. Specifically, Tembec stated that even though its back-end CPVs are identified as the best-performing units, these units do not meet the 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced standard for existing source CPVs.

    Tembec and Georgia-Pacific further stated that the emissions data the EPA used to represent Tembec's back-end CPVs were incomplete. According to Tembec and Georgia-Pacific, Tembec's back-end CPV HAP emissions data used in the final rule MACT floor analysis do not account for all HAP emitted, including methanol and formaldehyde. Therefore, petitioners stated that the EPA underestimated the total HAP emissions from these back-end CPVs, resulting in an unreasonably stringent production-based total HAP emissions standard for existing affected sources.

    Georgia-Pacific stated in its petition that the EPA made three errors in calculating the production-based HAP limits for CPVs at existing affected sources. First, the petitioner claimed that the promulgated emissions standard does not adequately account for variability in emissions from back-end CPVs. The commenter noted that the EPA calculated the emission rate for each CPV by dividing the 5-year total emissions by the 5-year total amount of resin produced by the corresponding resin unit. The petitioner stated that to account for short-term variability, the EPA should have based the standard on the maximum 1-year production-based HAP emissions rate for each CPV. Georgia-Pacific also stated that another approach the EPA could have used to account for variability in the data when calculating the production-based HAP emissions limit is the application of a 99-percent upper prediction limit (UPL). Second, Georgia-Pacific disagreed with the EPA's interpretation of “average” as the median rather than the arithmetic mean of the production-based HAP emissions, although it acknowledged the EPA's long-standing interpretation that “average” could mean arithmetic mean, median, or mode. The petitioner stated that using the arithmetic mean would better reflect the performance of Georgia-Pacific's back-end CPVs, whereas the median produced an emissions limit that is not representative of two of the five best-performing back-end CPVs (with the noted two being Georgia-Pacific CPVs). Third, Georgia-Pacific stated that the EPA's emissions calculations do not account for a change in particulate control technology for one of Tembec's back-end CPVs that occurred prior to the 2014 final rule. Georgia-Pacific asserted that HAP emissions from this CPV are now higher with the change in particulate control technology, and the EPA should not have used data from a period with the previous control technology in place when determining production-based HAP emissions from the five best-performing CPVs at existing affected sources.

    Georgia-Pacific also suggested in its petition for reconsideration that the EPA should explore subcategorizing the existing source CPVs between those at Tembec and those at Georgia-Pacific to account for fundamental differences in equipment and processes, including dryer size and/or type of resin produced. Georgia-Pacific's resin spray dryers are substantially larger than Tembec's resin spray dryers. Also, Tembec produces urea-formaldehyde resins, whereas Georgia-Pacific produces phenolic resins.

    Tembec stated in its petition that the EPA did not consider information Tembec submitted to the EPA in the development of the MACT standard for back-end CPVs at existing sources. Specifically, Tembec stated that 2006 engineering test data for one of its CPVs were submitted to the EPA and could have been used to better estimate the HAP emissions from its three CPVs. Tembec also stated that it supports the Georgia-Pacific petition.

    In a comment letter from Georgia-Pacific dated March 10, 2014 (Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0046), on the January 9, 2014, proposal, Georgia Pacific identified an additional CPV at its Crossett, Arkansas, facility. This newly identified CPV is not on the resin spray dryers. Whereas the resin spray dryers are on the back-end of the resin manufacturing process, this additional CPV is associated with a reactor used to produce urea-formaldehyde concentrate (UFC), which is located in the front-end of the resin manufacturing process, ahead of the resin spray dryers. Due to a lack of reliable emissions data for this CPV at the time of the 2014 final rule, the EPA did not include emissions from this CPV when it set the MACT floor for CPVs. The Sierra Club raised concerns in its petition for reconsideration regarding the exclusion of HAP emissions data from that front-end CPV, stating that the EPA did not adequately explain why the UFC CPV HAP emissions data were not included in the analysis to calculate the MACT floor for CPVs and asserting that the EPA must include all existing sources in the MACT floor analysis. Sierra Club argued that if the EPA had included Georgia-Pacific's UFC front-end CPV, the HAP emissions standard for CPVs would have been more stringent.

    Sierra Club asserted in its petition that all the CPVs are in the same source category and that the EPA cannot subcategorize based on the controls that are in place. Sierra Club further noted that although the EPA stated that the HAP emissions data from this front-end CPV were not reliable, such a statement is insufficient to explain ignoring the HAP emissions from this CPV when setting the MACT standard for CPVs. Lastly, Sierra Club stated that excluding the UFC front-end CPV in the MACT floor analysis because its HAP emissions are not responsible for driving risks is not a relevant reason for such an exclusion.

    Following the EPA's issuance of the March 27, 2015, letters granting reconsideration on petitioners' issues pertaining to CPVs, petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific conducted HAP emissions testing on the back-end CPVs located on their resin dryers at their four existing affected sources. The data from that testing are discussed in section III.A of this preamble.

    III. Proposed Emissions Standards for Back-End CPVs at Existing Sources A. What data were collected for back-end CPVs on resin spray dryers?

    Georgia-Pacific and Tembec conducted HAP emissions testing in April 2015 and June 2015 on all six back-end CPVs located on their resin spray dryers, and they submitted the results of that testing to the EPA. Georgia-Pacific separately tested emissions during production of three types of resins at its Conway, North Carolina, facility; two types of resins at the Taylorsville, Mississippi, facility; and one type of resin at the Crossett, Arkansas, facility. Tembec tested emissions from one spray dryer CPV while producing one type of resin and tested emissions during production of two types of resins from the other two resin spray dryer CPVs. The companies followed a testing protocol approved in advance by the EPA, and both companies conducted six 1-hour runs of the back-end CPVs on each resin spray dryer, where possible, yielding a total of 64 runs. The test data indicate that the major HAP present were methanol and formaldehyde. Complete information on the spray dryer back-end CPV exhaust emission testing, including process and operation information, testing protocol and methodology, quality assurance/quality control, and detailed test results are available in the rulemaking docket.

    B. What analyses were conducted for back-end CPVs? 1. MACT Floor Analysis for Back-End CPVs

    We performed a MACT floor analysis for back-end CPVs using the 2015 test data provided by Georgia-Pacific and Tembec. In determining the MACT floor for existing sources, CAA section 112(d)(3) specifies that the emissions limits cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). Since we have identified six existing source dryers in the APR source category, we determined the MACT floor-level of control based on the best-performing five sources. The MACT floor analysis involved determining the UPL emission rate for each dryer CPV, based on the emissions test results for the resin type generating the highest HAP emissions (where multiple resin types were tested). This UPL value takes into account production variability and estimates the upper bound of future values, based on present or past samples. The resulting UPL emission rate values for the six dryers were ranked, and the five lowest values were averaged to produce the MACT floor value.

    The EPA considered the petitioner's claim that the arithmetic average rather than the median value should be used in determining the MACT floor. Given the distribution of the data from these sources, the EPA interprets the arithmetic mean to be the better interpretation of “average” for this set of data. If the distribution of the emission rates from each of the dryers had extreme variation or extreme skewness, then the median might be a better indicator of the central tendency or average of the data set. However, given that the data set consists of only five values (i.e., the UPL of the performance testing results for each of the five best-performing dryers 2 ) and given that there is only a slight positive skew of this dataset, there is not enough skewness or variation in this dataset to conclude the median would be a better description of the average over the arithmetic mean.

    2 See Table 3 of the memorandum titled “Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category” in this docket.

    The EPA also considered how to best account for variability in emissions rates in the MACT floor determination. As each of these sources may produce multiple types (or recipes) of APR (without restriction and without needing any physical modification to the sources), to establish a standard that represents the emissions limit achieved in practice by the best-performing sources, our calculations of the MACT floor are based on the resin resulting in the highest HAP emissions at each of the best-performing sources and the calculated UPL emission rate for production of that highest-HAP emission generating resin at each dryer. In determining the MACT floor for existing sources, the EPA may exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of performance that has been achieved by the average of the best-performing sources (in this case, five sources) under variable conditions. The Court has recognized that the EPA may consider variability in estimating the degree of emissions reduction achieved by the best-performing sources and in setting MACT floors, holding the EPA may consider emission variability in estimating performance achieved by best-performing sources and may set the floor at a level that best-performing sources can expect to meet “every day and under all operating conditions.” 3 As a result of its analysis, the EPA has determined that an appropriate MACT floor for back-end CPVs s 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. See the memorandum titled “Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category” for more details on this analysis.

    3Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, (D.C. Cir. 2004).

    The EPA explored Georgia-Pacific's request in its petition regarding subcategorizing the dryer standards based on dryer size and/or type of resin produced. However, we found no compelling dryer size threshold nor resin type attribution that would provide a suitable rationale for subcategorization of a MACT floor for a back-end CPV standard.

    2. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End CPVs

    When establishing an emission standard pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAA, the EPA also determines whether to control emissions to a more stringent level “beyond-the-floor,” after considering the costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements of such more stringent control. As part of the beyond-the-floor analysis for existing source back-end CPVs, control options that are more stringent than the MACT floor were considered. We identified one such option for back-end CPVs at existing sources, a 98-percent emissions reduction requirement. For this option, we assumed that regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) would need to be used to achieve this control level at all existing APR sources with back-end CPVs. While we project that two facilities would already need to install RTOs on their back-end CPVs to meet the proposed revised MACT floor emissions limit, for this beyond-the-floor analysis, we evaluated the potential additional installation of RTOs at the other two facilities—one facility would install an RTO to control the back-end CPV on one resin spray dryer and the other facility would install an RTO to control the back-end CPVs on three resin spray dryers.

    Table 1 presents the impacts for the MACT floor and the beyond-the-floor options evaluated. Since we are not aware that any of the four facilities have installed controls to comply with the CPV requirements in the 2014 final rule, and since we are aware that at least three of the facilities have obtained an additional year to comply from their permitting authorities pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(i), we believe it is appropriate to compare the impacts of the MACT floor and the beyond-the-floor option identified to the 2000 rule compliance baseline. In addition, as explained previously, because the data used to set the production-based HAP emissions limit in the 2014 final rule did not account for all HAP, the cost and emissions impacts determined at the time the EPA issued the 2014 final rule would not be an appropriate basis of comparison. However, we note that using the more complete HAP emissions data now available, the cost and emissions impacts of the 2014 final rule for back-end CPVs would be approximately the same as the cost and emissions impacts of the beyond-the-floor option for back-end CPVs presented in Table 1 because we now project that all four facilities would need to install RTOs to comply with the 2014 final rule for back-end CPVs. More information on how the capital and annualized costs and costs per ton were calculated is available in the memorandum titled “National Impacts Associated with Proposed Existing Source Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” available in the rulemaking docket.

    4 Beyond-the-floor would be essentially the same level of control as the 2014 final rule, with revised estimates of the costs and HAP emissions reduction based on the 2015 test data of back-end CPVs at existing sources.

    Table 1—Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Cost Impacts of Control Options for Back-End CPVs at Existing APR Facilities Regulatory options HAP emissions
  • reduction
  • compared to
  • 2000 rule
  • (tons per year)
  • Capital cost
  • (million $)
  • Annualized cost
  • ($/yr)
  • Cost effectiveness
  • ($/ton HAP
  • removed)
  • Incremental cost effectiveness
  • ($/ton HAP
  • removed)
  • MACT floor 207 4.8 2.1 10,400 Beyond-the-floor 4 271 9.6 4.2 15,500 33,000

    Essentially, the beyond-the-floor option reflects a doubling of capital and annualized costs compared to the MACT floor option, while obtaining an additional HAP reduction of only 31-percent beyond the MACT floor option. Based on this analysis, we do not consider the beyond-the-floor option to be cost effective. Therefore, we are not proposing any beyond-the-floor standards. Instead, we are proposing to establish production-based HAP emission limits for back-end CPVs at existing APR production sources, at the level we have now determined is the correct MACT floor (i.e., 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced).

    3. Proposed Amendments to Compliance Demonstration Procedures

    Facilities in the APR Production source category produce a wide variety of resin recipes as needed to meet the specifications of various products in which these resins are used. As a result, the characteristics of the resins passing through the dryers where the back-end CPVs are located can vary at a facility. In order to ensure that APR sources monitor operating parameters at a level that ensures continuous compliance with the proposed MACT standards for back-end CPVs under any and all operating conditions, we are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.1413 to require sources to conduct the performance testing using the resin recipes anticipated to have the highest HAP content in the liquid resin.

    4. Consideration of Risk Review

    In the risk assessment for the 2014 final rule, we determined that the APR MACT standards promulgated in January 2000 provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health (including the then-uncontrolled emissions from CPVs at existing sources). See Residual Risk Assessment for the Amino/Phenolic Resins Production Source Category, Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0065. Although the data set used to establish the MACT production-based emission limits for CPVs at existing sources in the 2014 final rule did not include data on all HAP, the risk assessment modeling input files for the 2014 final rule show that emissions of all HAP, including methanol and formaldehyde, from the CPVs at the existing sources were accounted for, except for the non-reactor front-end CPV at the INEOS Melamines facility. At the INEOS Melamines facility, the 2014 risk modeling estimates a maximum individual risk of 0.4-in-1 million attributable to the APR source at the INEOS facility, with the risk driver identified as formaldehyde, and the risk modeling input files include 0.375 tons per year of formaldehyde emissions. The information collected from INEOS regarding its non-reactor front-end CPV indicates annual emissions of formaldehyde at less than 0.03 tons per year. Given the low risk estimate for the facility, we consider this small increase in emissions to be insignificant, and the estimated facility risk would be about the same (less than 1-in-1 million). Thus, we would not anticipate the inclusion of a revised emissions estimate for the INEOS facility would change the 2014 risk assessment results for the facility or the APR Production source category, and we have determined that additional quantitative risk analyses are not necessary.

    C. Should the EPA provide facilities more time to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV standards?

    We are soliciting comments on whether existing facilities would need additional time to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV standards, if the revisions to those standards are promulgated. The current compliance date in the 2014 final rule is October 9, 2017. The APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1401(d) provides the opportunity for existing facilities, on a case-by-case basis, to request an extension from their permitting authorities for up to 1 additional year to comply, if necessary, to install controls to meet a standard. We anticipate that two existing facilities would need to install control devices to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV emissions standards. Industry has indicated that at least 18 months would be needed to install controls, once the proposed rule is finalized, and a 1-year extension of the October 9, 2017, compliance date, if granted, would require compliance in less than 18 months from any promulgation date of the revised back-end CPV standards (given the date of this proposal). We are soliciting comments on whether to maintain the current compliance date, anticipating that case-by-case extension requests may be made, or if the compliance date should be established for another date. If it is appropriate to establish a different compliance date, we are soliciting comments on an appropriate date, such as a date 18 months after promulgation of the revised standards, the date 18 months beyond the original October 9, 2017, compliance date, or some other date.

    IV. What other changes or issues does this action address? A. Should the EPA promulgate a separate standard for front-end CPVs at existing sources?

    In the APR Production source category, CPVs are found in both the back-end and front-end of the resins production process. Back-end CPVs are associated with APR production operations related to processing liquid resins into a dry form. Back-end process operations include, but are not limited to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, drying, pelletizing, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Front-end CPVs are associated with the part of an APR process unit related to producing liquid resins, including any product recovery, stripping, and filtering operations. Front-end CPVs can be further distinguished as being reactor CPVs or non-reactor CPVs. A reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating from a reactor, whereas a non-reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating from a unit operation other than a reactor. Examples of non-reactor front-end CPV unit operations include filter presses, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, holding tanks, and distillation systems.

    The EPA has identified two APR Production existing sources that have front-end CPVs. One is Georgia-Pacific's facility in Crossett, Arkansas, and the other is an INEOS Melamines facility in Springfield, Massachusetts. Georgia-Pacific has a front-end reactor CPV that handles air streams originating from the reactor associated with the manufacture of UFC. This front-end CPV is controlled with an RTO that achieves a HAP control efficiency of 95 percent or more and also controls HAP emissions from other processes at the facility. The EPA became aware of this front-end CPV through comments on the 2014 proposed rulemaking, but had limited information about this front-end CPV at the time of the final rule. INEOS Melamines has a front-end non-reactor CPV that handles air streams from the formaldehyde recovery process associated with their amino resins production process. This front-end CPV is routed to a scrubber, which was installed primarily for control of particulate matter emissions. The EPA was not aware of this front-end CPV unit during the 2014 rulemaking, but learned of it in 2015 from communications with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. We are not aware of any other front-end CPVs at any of the other existing sources in the APR Production source category.

    Since the air emission streams from these two front-end CPVs have different characteristics, such as different flow rates and HAP concentrations, and are vents for dissimilar types of equipment and would likely require different control approaches, we are soliciting comments on, but not yet proposing, whether standards for these front-end CPVs should be revised from the currently applicable CPV standard of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced and subcategorized into two types—reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs. Separate standards for the two types of front-end CPVs would be consistent with how reactor and non-reactor vents have been regulated by the EPA for batch processes for the APR Production source category—see 40 CFR 63.1406 Reactor Batch Process Vent Provisions and 40 CFR 63.1407 Non-reactor Batch Process Vent Provisions. We are not proposing separate standards for front-end CPVs on reactors and non-reactors at this time because we are uncertain as to whether we have identified the only two front-end CPVs in the source category or whether the data for these two CPVs would be appropriate to revise the currently applicable CPV standards and establish front-end CPV standards for the source category if there are other front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether there are other reactor or non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. For any such front-end CPVs, we are further seeking information regarding current HAP emissions, emissions controls, and control costs. If there are no other reactor or non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources or if no additional data are provided for any such CPVs, it is possible that the EPA would consider, in lieu of leaving front-end CPVs at existing sources subject to the currently applicable CPV standards, adopting final revised standards that could apply to front-end CPVs at existing sources, as discussed below.

    Based on the analyses presented below, we could establish separate existing APR Production source standards for front-end CPVs on reactors and for front-end CPVs on non-reactors, based on the MACT floor. We are soliciting comments on whether the EPA should maintain the 2014 final rule CPV emissions standards that currently apply to front-end CPVs (1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced), whether the EPA should replace these standards for front-end CPVs with standards specific to front-end CPVs as discussed in this section, or whether the EPA should set different revised front-end CPV standards based on additional information about additional front-end CPVs that the EPA has not yet obtained.

    1. Data Collected for Front-End CPVs

    On November 30, 2015, the EPA requested process information and emissions data for front-end CPVs at Georgia-Pacific's Crossett and INEOS Melamines' resin production facilities via a CAA section 114 survey. Georgia-Pacific has another formaldehyde and resin manufacturing facility located in Columbus, Ohio, for which Georgia-Pacific also provided information in their survey submittal. Although the Columbus facility is an area source not subject to the APR MACT standards, Georgia-Pacific provided the data to help clarify emissions that would be expected from the front-end CPV due to APR production at the Georgia-Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas, where the front-end CPV at this facility handles streams from both APR and non-APR production sources, since the Columbus and Crossett resin manufacturing operations are similar. The EPA received responses from Georgia-Pacific on February 9, 2016, and responses from INEOS Melamines on January 11, 2016, with additional information on May 23, 2016. The CAA section 114 survey and the survey responses received from Georgia-Pacific and INEOS Melamines can be found in the rulemaking docket.

    2. MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Front-End CPVs

    We performed separate MACT floor analyses for reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section 114 survey data provided by Georgia-Pacific and INEOS Melamines.

    For front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of one major source facility with a front-end reactor CPV subject to the APR NESHAP, which is a Georgia Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas. Georgia-Pacific also submitted data for a facility in Columbus, Ohio, which is a synthetic area source and is not subject to the APR NESHAP. Consistent with the EPA's longstanding policy and with prior rulemakings where the EPA has included data from synthetic area sources in MACT floor calculations,5 data for the front-end CPVs at both the synthetic area source and the major source were included in the MACT floor calculations for reactor front-end CPVs. Based on our analysis of the data provided by Georgia Pacific for these facilities, we have determined that the MACT floor for front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources would be 0.61 lb of HAP per hour.6

    5See, e.g., NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 68 FR 2227, 2232 (January 16, 2003); NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, 68 FR 26690, 26697 (May 16, 2003); NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, 77 FR 22848, 22876 (April 17, 2012).

    6 The EPA did not select a production-based format for the MACT floor because front-end equipment may not produce finished resin products and relating the output of front-end equipment to tons of finished resin produced may be difficult for compliance purposes.

    For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of one major source facility with a front-end non-reactor CPV subject to the APR NESHAP, which is INEOS Melamines in Springfield, Massachusetts. As there is only one front-end CPV in this subcategory, the emissions level currently being achieved by this CPV represents the MACT floor for the subcategory. Based on our analysis of the data provided by INEOS Melamines for this front-end CPV, we have determined that the MACT floor for front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources would be 0.022 lb of HAP per hour.7

    7See footnote 5.

    We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis for reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section 114 survey data. For front-end reactor CPVs, HAP emissions from the CPVs at both facilities are controlled with RTOs, and we have not identified any other technology that would perform better. Therefore, there is no beyond-the-floor option to evaluate.

    For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, the CPV at the INEOS Melamines facility is currently controlled with a scrubber, and we assumed carbon adsorption would be a technically feasible control technology that would reduce HAP emissions. We estimated the total annualized costs of adding carbon adsorption to be approximately $9,000 per year and the control would achieve an additional reduction of 0.04 tons of HAP per year, resulting in a cost of approximately $225,000 per ton of HAP removed beyond the MACT floor level of control. Based on the high costs and low additional emissions reduction possible with this control, we have determined that this beyond-the-floor option is not reasonable. More information on these MACT floor and beyond-the-floor analyses are available in the memorandum titled “MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analyses for Front-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category” in the rulemaking docket.

    B. Proposed Work Practice Standards for Storage Vessels at New and Existing Sources During Planned Routine Maintenance of Emission Control Systems

    In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemption from emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction in accordance with a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). This decision stated that the EPA must have standards in place at all times, even during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As a result, the storage vessel provisions in the APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1404 apply at all times. In their petition for reconsideration, Georgia-Pacific requested that the EPA reconsider the applicability of the storage vessel HAP emissions standards when the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof storage vessel is shut down for planned routine maintenance.

    In the 2014 final rule, we established storage vessel capacity and vapor pressure applicability thresholds for storage vessels at new and existing sources, consistent with the thresholds established for the chemical industry regulated by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (HON). Georgia Pacific stated in its petition for reconsideration of the 2014 final rule that to meet the goal of being wholly consistent with the HON storage vessel standards, the EPA also should include the HON storage vessel allowance for routine maintenance of an emission control system in the rule. The HON includes provisions at 40 CFR 63.119(e)(3) and (f)(3) that allow an affected source to bypass the storage vessel emission control system for up to 240 hours per year to perform planned routine maintenance of the emission control system. The emission control system could be an emission control device, fuel gas system, or process. The petitioner stated that these provisions would ensure consistency and are needed because the effort to empty and degas a tank to perform this maintenance could result in greater HAP emissions than would occur if a limited allowance or exception were provided.

    To determine whether separate MACT standards should be established for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof tank at a new or existing source, we reviewed the title V permits for each facility subject to the APR NESHAP. In this review, we searched for facilities that had storage vessels subject to the emissions standards of the APR NESHAP and for any permit requirements pertaining to periods of routine maintenance of a control device for a storage vessel. From the review, several facilities were found to have storage vessels subject to the APR NESHAP emission standards, and two facilities had permit conditions for periods of time when the storage vessel control device was not operating. One facility had requirements that emissions be routed to a different control device, which normally operates at the facility for other processes, during planned outages of the primary control device for the storage vessel. At this facility, when both control devices are not operating, there are requirements that the storage vessels not be filled during these times, eliminating working loss emissions. The other facility had requirements for one storage vessel that specify it could not be filled when its emission control system was not operating. The reviewed title V permits also indicate that some APR facilities are co-located with storage vessels subject to the HON (or have storage vessels that serve both APR and HON operations, but are subject to the HON due to predominant use).

    We also reviewed other chemical production NESHAP to determine requirements that apply to similar storage vessels. From the review of these NESHAP, we found that the HON and several other NESHAP, including, but not limited to, those for Group I Polymers and Resins, Group IV Polymers and Resins, Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations, Pharmaceuticals Production, and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production with similar vapor pressure and threshold capacities had provisions that minimized HAP emissions during periods of planned routine maintenance. Provisions minimized HAP emissions by limiting the duration of the planned routine maintenance to 240 hours per year. The Pharmaceuticals Production and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP allow a facility to request an extension of up to an additional 120 hours per year on the condition that no material is added to the tank during such requested extension period. Based on our review of these permits and NESHAP, we have determined that a separate work practice standard that allows owners/operators up to 240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, provided that there are no working losses from the vessel, represents the MACT floor level of control for fixed roof tank vents at new and existing APR sources.

    We evaluated the 2014 final rule's requirement that the storage vessel work practice standard at new and existing APR sources apply at all times (with no separate work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system) as a beyond-the-floor control option. To comply with this option (i.e., the current rule's storage tank requirements), we anticipate that backup controls would likely be installed to ensure compliance with the storage vessel requirements during periods of planned routine maintenance of the primary emission control system. We estimate that there are one to 15 sources in the category that would need to control one or more storage vessels during periods when the primary emission control system is undergoing planned routine maintenance. We estimate that carbon canisters would be the emission control devices used for two storage vessels at each facility. We estimate these control devices would have an annualized cost of $830 per year per facility and would reduce 240 hours of breathing losses of 0.013 tons of HAP per year per facility, at a cost of $62,400 per ton of HAP emissions reduced. We view the costs of this beyond-the-floor option as not being cost effective.

    Based on this analysis, we are proposing amendments to the currently applicable storage vessel work practice standard provisions for new and existing affected sources that would establish separate work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with HAP emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. The proposed amendments would permit owners and operators of fixed roof tanks at new and existing affected APR sources to bypass the emission control system for up to 240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, provided that there are no working losses from the fixed roof tank. To prevent HAP emissions from working losses, owners/operators would not be permitted to add material to the tank during these planned routine maintenance periods. Under this provision, the storage vessel would emit HAP to the atmosphere for a limited amount of time due to breathing losses only, which we expect to be a much lower HAP emission rate than if there were also working losses resulting from filling the vessel. The proposed separate work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system would result in slightly higher HAP emissions (approximately 0.013 tons per year per facility) than would occur under the current work practice standards for storage vessels in the 2014 final rule and would reduce annualized costs of approximately $830 per year per facility.

    We are soliciting comments on these proposed work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR sources and whether they represent practices by the best-performing sources in the APR Production source category. We are soliciting comments on whether there are other practices that should be considered in establishing the work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for storage vessels at existing and new APR sources. We are also soliciting comments on whether we have accurately estimated the HAP emissions and costs compared to the work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing sources in the 2014 final rule.

    V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources?

    We estimate that four to 15 existing sources would be affected by one or more of the revised requirements being proposed in this action. We expect four existing sources to be affected by the proposed revised back-end CPV requirements. We expect one to 15 existing affected sources to be affected by the proposed work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. We anticipate that some of these existing affected sources could be affected by more than one of the proposed requirements.

    B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We are proposing a revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced for back-end CPVs at existing sources. We project that the proposed standard would result in an estimated reduction of 207 tons of HAP per year beyond the January 2000, APR MACT standards. As discussed previously in section III.B.2 of this preamble, the production-based emissions limit for existing source CPVs in the 2014 final rule was established based on incomplete HAP emissions data. However, if facilities were to comply with that 2014 final rule, we estimate a reduction of 271 tons per year of HAP emissions using the revised HAP emissions estimates based upon the 2015 test data.

    In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemptions from standards that applied during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In the absence of separate work practice standards that would apply during these times, affected sources are now required to meet the storage vessel work practice standards during periods when the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof storage tank is shut down for planned routine maintenance by routing storage vessel vents to a back-up control device, resulting in an estimated decrease of 0.013 tons of HAP per year per facility beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards. The proposed work practice standards we are proposing in this action would preclude the need to install back-up controls for these vessels. We anticipate that the proposed revised work practice standards would reduce HAP emissions from those allowed under the January 2000 APR MACT standards as a result of preventing working losses by not filling the tank during planned routine maintenance of the control device and as a result of limiting the annual duration of the maintenance period; however, the HAP emissions reduction may be slightly less than the 0.08 tons of HAP per year projected under the 2014 final rule.

    C. What are the cost impacts?

    For back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, we are proposing a revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. We project that back-end CPVs at two existing affected sources would require emissions controls to meet the proposed revised standard. For cost purposes, we assumed that each facility would install an RTO. Based on discussions with Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, we understand that the facilities are exploring other options, such as process changes, that may be more cost effective. However, the technical feasibility and potential costs of these options are currently unknown, and our estimate of compliance costs, assuming the use of RTOs, is based on the best information available. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $4.8 million and annualized costs to be $2.1 million per year. These costs are additional to the 2000 rule, which did not regulate CPVs at existing sources. Compared to our revised estimate of the 2014 final rule costs of $9.6 million in capital costs and annualized costs of $4.2 million,8 the proposed revised standard represents an approximate 50-percent reduction in industry-wide costs.

    8See memorandum “National Impacts Associated with Proposed Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” which is available in the rulemaking docket.

    We estimated the nationwide annualized cost reductions associated with the proposed work practice standard for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. Compared to our revised estimate of the 2014 final rule costs,9 the proposed storage vessel work practice standards result in an annualized cost reduction for each facility of $830 per year, which includes capital cost reduction of $1,600. We estimate the nationwide annualized cost reduction to be up to $12,450 per year based on an estimated 15 facilities.

    9 Same as footnote 8.

    D. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed a national economic impact analysis for APR production facilities affected by this proposed rule. We anticipate that two existing affected sources would install RTOs to comply with this proposed rule at a total annualized cost of $2.1 million (in 2014$) per year compared to the 2000 rule. These total annualized costs of compliance are estimated to be approximately 0.002 percent of sales. Accordingly, we do not project that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on the affected entities.

    The estimated total annualized cost of this proposal can also be compared to the estimated cost for the industry to comply with the 2014 final rule. Based on information received since the 2014 rule was finalized, we developed a revised estimate of the cost to comply with the 2014 final rule. We estimate the revised annualized cost of complying with the 2014 final rule to be $4.2 million per year.10 Compared to this revised estimate of the cost of compliance with the 2014 final rule, this proposal would provide regulatory relief by reducing annualized compliance costs by $2.1 million.

    10See Table 3 and Table 4, Memorandum “National Impacts Associated with Proposed Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” which is available in the rulemaking docket.

    More information and details of this analysis, including the conclusions stated above, are provided in the technical document, “Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Amendments to the NESHAP for Amino/Phenolic Resins,” which is available in the rulemaking docket.

    E. What are the benefits?

    We estimate that this proposed rule would result in an annual reduction of 207 tons of HAP, compared to the pre-2014 baseline. These avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduced negative health effects associated with exposure to air pollution of these emissions; however, we have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking. See section V.B of this preamble for discussion of existing source CPV HAP emissions under this proposed rule compared to the 2014 final rule.

    VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and Participation

    The EPA seeks public comments on the issues addressed in this proposed rule, as described in this notice. We are soliciting comments on the proposed emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, whether to extend the compliance date for the proposed revised emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, whether to promulgate separate emissions standards for reactor front-end CPVs and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources in lieu of leaving them subject to the current CPV standards, and on the information available to the EPA to establish emission standards for front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. We also request comments on the proposed work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR sources during periods when an emission control system for a fixed roof tank vent is undergoing planned routine maintenance. We are not soliciting and will not respond to comments addressing any other issues or other provisions of the 2014 final rule or any other rule, including other issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the 2014 final rule. Those issues will be addressed, as appropriate, in a separate, future action.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1869.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.

    This proposed rule would require recordkeeping and reporting of occurrences when control devices used to comply with the storage tank provisions undergo planned routine maintenance. Reporting of such occurrences would be required to be disclosed in the Periodic Reports as specified at 40 CFR 63.1417.

    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents affected by the amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO include, but are not limited to, facilities having a NAICS code 325211 (United States Standard Industrial Classification 2821). Facilities with a NAICS code of 325211 are described as Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin types.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under sections 112 and 114 of the CAA.

    Estimated number of respondents: 15.

    Frequency of response: Once or twice per year.

    Total estimated burden: 45 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,600 (per year).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than September 25, 2017. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The EPA has identified no small entities that are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 63, subpart OOO.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA's risk assessments for the 2014 final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133) demonstrate that the current regulations are associated with an acceptable level of risk and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. This proposed action would not alter those conclusions.

    H. 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.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In the 2014 final rule, the EPA determined that the current health risks posed by emissions from these source categories are acceptable and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. This proposed action would not alter the conclusions made in the 2014 final rule regarding these analyses.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 7, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend title 40, Chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart OOO—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins 2. Section 63.1400 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
    § 63.1400 Applicability and designation of affected sources.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Equipment that does not contain organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and is located within an APPU that is part of an affected source;

    3. Section 63.1402 paragraph (b) is amended by: a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for “Back-end continuous process vent”, “Front-end continuous process vent”, “Non-reactor process vent”, and “Reactor process vent”; and b. Removing the definitions for “Non-reactor batch process vent” and “Reactor batch process vent”

    The additions read as follows:

    § 63.1402 Definitions.

    (b) * * *

    Back-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent for operations related to processing liquid resins into a dry form. Back-end process operations include, but are not limited to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, drying, pelletizing, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Back-end does not include storage and loading of finished product or emission points that are regulated under §§ 63.1404 or 63.1409 through 63.1411 of this subpart.

    Front-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent for operations in an APPU related to producing liquid resins, including any product recovery, stripping and filtering operations, and prior to any flaking or drying operations.

    Non-reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent originating from a unit operation other than a reactor. Non-reactor process vents include, but are not limited to, process vents from filter presses, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, and distillation systems.

    Reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent originating from a reactor.

    4. Section 63.1404 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follow:
    § 63.1404 Storage vessel provisions.

    (c) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from a tank through a closed-vent system connected to a control device used to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the control device must be operating except as provided for in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.

    (1) The control device may be bypassed for the purpose of performing planned routine maintenance of the control device. When the control device is bypassed, the owner or operator must comply with paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    (i) The control device may only be bypassed when the planned routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that tank emissions are vented to the control device.

    (ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance shall not exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.

    (iii) The level of material in the tank shall not be increased during periods that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform planned routine maintenance.

    (2) The gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from the tank through a closed-vent system connected to an alternate control device meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or the alterative standard in paragraph (b) of this section.

    5. Section 63.1405 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, paragraph (b), and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 63.1405 Continuous process vent provisions.

    (a) Emission standards for new affected sources. For each continuous process vent located at a new affected source with a Total Resource Effectiveness (TRE) index value, as determined following the procedures specified in § 63.1412(j), less than or equal to 1.2, the owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (a) of this section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

    (2) Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 85 weight-percent. Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices). When complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for purposes of this subpart:

    (b) Emission standards for existing affected sources. For each continuous process vent located at an existing affected source, the owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (b) of this section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

    (1) Vent all emissions of organic HAP to a flare.

    (2) The owner or operator of a back-end continuous process vent shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or equal to 4.3 kg of total organic HAP per megagram of resin produced (8.6 pounds of total organic HAP per ton of resin produced).

    (c) Alternative emission standards. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate.

    (1) For each continuous process vent located at a new affected source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP emissions from a continuous process vent meeting the TRE value specified in paragraph (a) of this section to a non-flare combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or to a non-combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or less. Any continuous process vents that are not vented to a control device meeting these conditions shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.

    (2) For each continuous process vent located at an existing affected source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP emissions from a continuous process vent to a non-flare combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or to a non-combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or less. Any continuous process vents that are not vented to a control device meeting these conditions shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.

    6. Section 63.1412 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (k)(2) to read as follows:
    § 63.1412 Continuous process vent applicability assessment procedures and methods.

    (a) General. The provisions of this section provide procedures and methods for determining the applicability of the control requirements specified in § 63.1405(a) to continuous process vents.

    (k) * * *

    (2) If the TRE index value calculated using engineering assessment is less than or equal to 4.0, the owner or operator is required either to perform the measurements specified in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this section for control applicability assessment or comply with the control requirements specified in § 63.1405(a).

    7. Section 63.1413 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii); c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(4) introductory text, and paragraphs (c)(2), and (c)(4) through (6); d. Adding paragraph (c)(7); e. Revising paragraphs (f) and (h)(1); f. Redesignating paragraph (h)(2) as (h)(3); g. Adding new paragraph (h)(2); h. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(3) introductory text and paragraphs (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii) introductory text, (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) and (3), and (h)(3)(iii); i. Adding paragraph (h)(4); j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(iii) through (iv); and k. Adding paragraph (i)(1)(v).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 63.1413 Compliance demonstration procedures.

    (a) General. For each emission point, the owner or operator shall meet three stages of compliance, with exceptions specified in this subpart. First, the owner or operator shall conduct a performance test or design evaluation to demonstrate either the performance of the control device or control technology being used or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. Second, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements for demonstrating initial compliance (e.g., a demonstration that the required percent reduction or emissions limit is achieved). Third, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance through some form of monitoring (e.g., continuous monitoring of operating parameters).

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Uncontrolled continuous process vents. Owners or operators are required to conduct either a performance test or a design evaluation for continuous process vents that are not controlled through either a large or small control device.

    (3) Design evaluations. As provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the performance of the control device or control technology or the organic HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.

    (4) Establishment of parameter monitoring levels. The owner or operator of a control device that has one or more parameter monitoring level requirements specified under this subpart, or specified under subparts referenced by this subpart, shall establish a maximum or minimum level, as denoted on Table 4 of this subpart, for each measured parameter using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the owner or operator shall operate control devices such that the hourly average, daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block average of monitored parameters, established as specified in this paragraph, remains above the minimum level or below the maximum level, as appropriate.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Initial compliance with § 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the procedures specified in paragraph (g) of this section.

    (4) Continuous compliance with § 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the continuous monitoring procedures specified in § 63.1415.

    (5) Initial and continuous compliance with the production-based emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall be demonstrated following the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.

    (6) Initial and continuous compliance with the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) shall be demonstrated following the procedures of either paragraphs (c)(6)(i) or (ii) or this section.

    (i) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit using a closed vent system and a control device or recovery device or by routing emissions to a fuel gas system or process shall follow the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. When complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for purposes of this subpart:

    (A) The requirements specified in of § 63.1405 (a)(2)(i) through (viii).

    (B) When 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS refers to meeting a weight-percent emission reduction or ppmv outlet concentration requirement, meeting an emission rate limit in terms of kilograms of total organic HAP per hour shall also apply.

    (ii) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit by means other than those specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

    (7) Initial and continuous compliance with the alternative standards specified in § 63.1405(c) shall be demonstrated following the procedures in paragraph (f) of this section.

    (f) Compliance with alternative standard. Initial and continuous compliance with the alternative standards in §§ 63.1404(b), 63.1405(c), 63.1406(b), 63.1407(b)(1), and 63.1408(b)(1) are demonstrated when the daily average outlet organic HAP concentration is 20 ppmv or less when using a combustion control device or 50 ppmv or less when using a non-combustion control device. To demonstrate initial and continuous compliance, the owner or operator shall follow the test method specified in § 63.1414(a)(6) and shall be in compliance with the monitoring provisions in § 63.1415(e) no later than the initial compliance date and on each day thereafter.

    (h) * * *

    (1) Each owner or operator complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall determine initial compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section and continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section.

    (i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i).

    (ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on the daily average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The first continuous compliance average daily emission rate shall be calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be determined by comparing the daily average emission rate to the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i).

    (2) As required by paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section, each owner or operator complying with the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable, by means other than those specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section shall determine initial compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section and continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section.

    (i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable.

    (ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on the hourly average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The first continuous compliance average hourly emission rate shall be calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be determined by comparing the average hourly emission rate to the emission rate limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), as applicable.

    (3) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i). (i) The daily emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per megagram of product, shall be determined for each operating day using Equation 5 of this section:

    EP24AU17.000 Where: ER = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process vent, kg of HAP/Mg product. Ei = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process vent i as determined using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, kg/day. RPm = Amount of resin produced in one month as determined using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section, Mg/day.

    (ii) The daily emission rate of organic HAP, in kilograms per day, from an individual continuous process vent (Ei) shall be determined. Once organic HAP emissions have been estimated, as specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled continuous process vents or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section for continuous process vents vented to a control device or control technology, the owner or operator may use the estimated organic HAP emissions (Ei) until the estimated organic HAP emissions are no longer representative due to a process change or other reason known to the owner or operator. If organic HAP emissions (Ei) are determined to no longer be representative, the owner or operator shall redetermine organic HAP emissions for the continuous process vent following the procedures in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled continuous process vents or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section for continuous process vents vented to a control device or control technology.

    (B) * * *

    (1) Uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be determined following the procedures in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.

    (3) Controlled organic HAP emissions shall be determined by applying the control device or control technology efficiency, determined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, to the uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, determined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section.

    (iii) The rate of resin produced, RPM (Mg/day), shall be determined based on production records certified by the owner or operator to represent actual production for the day. A sample of the records selected by the owner or operator for this purpose shall be provided to the Administrator in the Precompliance Report as required by § 63.1417(d).

    (4) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the emission rate limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii).

    (i) The hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per hour, shall be determined for each hour during the operating day using Equation 6 of this section:

    EP24AU17.001 Where: EH = Hourly emission rate of organic HAP in the sample, kilograms per hour. K2 = Constant, 2.494 × 10 6 (parts per million) 1 (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour), where standard temperature for (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 °C. n = Number of components in the sample. CJ = Organic HAP concentration on a dry basis of organic compound j in parts per million as determined by the methods specified in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section. Mj = Molecular weight of organic compound j, gram/gram-mole. QS = Continuous process vent flow rate, dry standard cubic meter per minute, at a temperature of 20 °C, as determined by the methods specified in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section.

    (ii) The average hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per hour, shall be determined for each operating day using Equation 7 of this section:

    EP24AU17.002 Where: AE = Average hourly emission rate per operating day, kilograms per hour. n = Number of hours in the operating day.

    (ii) Continuous process vent flow rate and organic HAP concentration shall be determined using the procedures specified in § 63.1414(a), or by using the engineering assessment procedures in paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of this section.

    (iii) Engineering assessment. For the purposes of determining continuous compliance with the emission rate limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) using Equations 6 and 7, engineering assessments may be used to determine continuous process vent flow rate and organic HAP concentration. An engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following examples:

    (A) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of current operating practices.

    (B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the process under representative operating conditions.

    (C) Maximum volumetric flow rate or organic HAP concentration specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the continuous process vent.

    (D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not limited to, the following:

    (1) Estimation of maximum organic HAP concentrations based on process stoichiometry material balances or saturation conditions; and

    (2) Estimation of maximum volumetric flow rate based on physical equipment design such as pump or blower capacities.

    (i) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Exceedance of the mass emission limit (i.e., having an average value higher than the specified limit) monitored according to the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) of this section for batch process vents and according to the provisions of paragraph (h)(1) of this section for continuous process vents;

    (iv) Exceedance of the organic HAP outlet concentration limit (i.e., having an average value higher than the specified limit) monitored according to the provisions of § 63.1415(e); and

    (v) Exceedance of the emission rate limit (i.e., having an average value higher than the specified limit) determined according to the provisions of paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

    8. Section 63.1415 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 63.1415 Monitoring requirements.

    (e) Monitoring for the alternative standards. For control devices that are used to comply with the provisions of §§ 63.1404(b), 63.1405(c), 63.1406(b), 63.1407(b), or 63.1408(b), the owner or operator shall conduct continuous monitoring of the outlet organic HAP concentration whenever emissions are vented to the control device. Continuous monitoring of outlet organic HAP concentration shall be accomplished using an FTIR instrument following Method PS-15 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator shall calculate a daily average outlet organic HAP concentration.

    9. Section 63.1416 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1), (3), (5) introductory text, and (5)(ii); b. Adding paragraph (f)(5)(iii); e. Redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as (f)(7); f. Adding new paragraph (f)(6); and g. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f)(7) introductory text and paragraph (g)(5)(v)(E).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 63.1416 Recordkeeping requirements.

    (f) * * * (1) TRE index value records. Each owner or operator of a continuous process vent at a new affected source shall maintain records of measurements, engineering assessments, and calculations performed according to the procedures of § 63.1412(j) to determine the TRE index value. Documentation of engineering assessments, described in § 63.1412(k), shall include all data, assumptions, and procedures used for the engineering assessments.

    (3) Organic HAP concentration records. Each owner or operator shall record the organic HAP concentration as measured using the sampling site and organic HAP concentration determination procedures (if applicable) specified in § 63.1412(b) and (e), or determined through engineering assessment as specified in § 63.1412(k).

    (5) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate compliance with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    (ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an operating day.

    (iii) The daily organic HAP emissions from the continuous process vent determined as specified in § 63.1413(h)(3).

    (6) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate compliance with the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    (i) The results of the initial compliance demonstration specified in § 63.1413(h)(2)(i).

    (ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an operating day.

    (iii) The average hourly organic HAP emissions from the continuous process vent determined as specified in § 63.1413(h)(4).

    (7) When using a flare to comply with § 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1), keep the records specified in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through (f)(7)(iii) of this section.

    (g) * * *

    (5) * * *

    (v) * * *

    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.

    10. Section 63.1417 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(8), (e)(1) introductory text, (f) introductory text, and (f)(1), (2), (5) introductory text and (12)(ii); b. Adding paragraphs (f)(14) and (15); and c. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 63.1417 Reporting requirements.

    (d) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected sources requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode as described in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(h)(3), shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the schedule described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (11) of this section, as appropriate.

    (8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

    (e) * * *

    (1) The results of any emission point applicability determinations, performance tests, design evaluations, inspections, continuous monitoring system performance evaluations, any other information used to demonstrate compliance, and any other information, as appropriate, required to be included in the Notification of Compliance Status under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and subpart WW, as referred to in § 63.1404 for storage vessels; under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, as referred to in § 63.1405 for continuous process vents; under § 63.1416(f)(1) through (3), (5)(i) and (ii), and (6)(i) and (ii) for continuous process vents; under § 63.1416(d)(1) for batch process vents; and under § 63.1416(e)(1) for aggregate batch vent streams. In addition, each owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.

    (f) Periodic Reports. Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, a report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) of this section or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section, as appropriate, shall be submitted semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of each 180 day period. In addition, for equipment leaks subject to § 63.1410, the owner or operator shall submit the information specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, and for heat exchange systems subject to § 63.1409, the owner or operator shall submit the information specified in § 63.1409. Section 63.1415 shall govern the use of monitoring data to determine compliance for emissions points required to apply controls by the provisions of this subpart.

    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, a report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) of this section or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section, as appropriate, shall be submitted semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of each 180 day period. The first report shall be submitted no later than 240 days after the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due and shall cover the 6-month period beginning on the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due. Subsequent reports shall cover each preceding 6-month period.

    (2) If none of the compliance exceptions specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section occurred during the 6-month period, the Periodic Report required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall be a statement that the affected source was in compliance for the preceding 6-month period and no activities specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section occurred during the preceding 6-month period.

    (5) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), § 63.1407(b)(2), or § 63.1408(b)(2), the following information, as appropriate, shall be included:

    (12) * * *

    (ii) The quarterly reports shall include all information specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section applicable to the emission point for which quarterly reporting is required under paragraph (f)(12)(i) of this section. Information applicable to other emission points within the affected source shall be submitted in the semiannual reports required under paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

    (14) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the report shall include the daily average emission rate calculated for each operating day for which a deviation occurred.

    (15) If there is a deviation from the emission rate limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), the report shall include the following information for each operating day for which a deviation occurred:

    (i) The calculated average hourly emission rate.

    (ii) The individual hourly emission rate data points making up the average hourly emission rate.

    (h) * * *

    (7) Whenever a continuous process vent becomes subject to control requirements under § 63.1405, as a result of a process change, the owner or operator shall submit a report within 60 days after the performance test or applicability assessment, whichever is sooner. The report may be submitted as part of the next Periodic Report required by paragraph (f) of this section.

    [FR Doc. 2017-17514 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 20 and 43 [WC Docket No. 11-10; FCC 17-103] Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on how to revise the current FCC Form 477 collection of voice and broadband subscription and deployment data to increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the public.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before September 25, 2017 and reply comments are due on or before October 10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 11-10, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.

    • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    ○ All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Parisi, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1356 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM or Further Notice) in WC Docket No. 11-10; FCC 17-103, adopted on August 3, 2017 and released on August 4, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554 or at the following Internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-improvements-broadbandvoice-services-data-collection.

    I. Introduction

    1. The Commission initiates a further proceeding to take a focused look at the Commission's Form 477—the principal tool used by the Commission to gather data on communications services, including broadband services, to help inform policymaking. The Commission's goal in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is two-pronged: To examine its experience based its current data collection in order to collect better and more accurate information on Form 477; and, to explore how the Commission can revise other aspects of the data collection to increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the public. These steps continue the Commission's efforts to improve the value of the data the Commission continues to collect, while also identifying and eliminating unnecessary or overly burdensome filing requirements.

    II. Discussion

    2. Accurate and reliable data on fixed and mobile broadband and voice services are critical to the Commission's ability to meet its goal of decision-making based on sound and rigorous data analysis. Others, including Congressional and state and Tribal policymakers, researchers, and consumers, also rely on the data the Commission collects for a variety of purposes. In support of these efforts, the Commission seeks comment first on ways in which it might change aspects of the Form 477 to increase the quality and accuracy of the information the Commission will continue to collect. The Commission also seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might streamline its current Form 477 requirements and thereby reduce the burdens on filers. The Commission begins below with its proposals for improving and streamlining the Form 477 data collection for mobile services, before turning to a discussion of fixed services.

    3. In undertaking this examination of the Form 477 data collection, one of the primary objectives is to ensure that the data the Commission collects are closely aligned with the uses to which they will be put, both by the Commission and by outside stakeholders. As a preliminary issue, the Commission seeks comment on those uses to inform its analysis. For each of the issues considered below, the Commission asks for comment on the relationship between potential changes to the collection and the current or expected need for, and use of, the data. Specifically, the Commission asks for comment on whether and how revisions to the collection would better support an existing or expected use of data. In addition to the Commission's many uses for the data, the Commission understands that external stakeholder uses of the data include state public utility commission regulatory and program analysis, academic research, and state and local broadband deployment and adoption analysis. Are there other external uses of the data for which the Commission should account if the Commission makes changes to the collection? Is the existing data collection well designed for Commission and stakeholder use? Will the revisions under consideration in the FNPRM better align the data the Commission collects with the use of those data? Are there elements of the collection not discussed below that should be considered for elimination because of redundancy or insufficient usefulness?

    4. Having accurate and reliable mobile broadband deployment data is critical to policymakers as well as to consumers. However, obtaining meaningful data in the mobile context is challenging. A user's mobile service experience is inherently variable and is affected by various factors, such as terrain, location (e.g., whether the user is indoors or outdoors or distance from a tower), weather, congestion, and the type of connected device. In this Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on the tradeoffs among the following possible approaches for improving the mobile broadband deployment data the Commission collects. The Commission also seeks input on whether the characteristics or properties of next generation mobile technologies such as 5G may require modifications to the current Form 477 requirements.

    5. The current Form 477 data on deployment of mobile broadband services represents a significant improvement over the data that were previously available from earlier data sources. The 2013 Form 477 Order, 78 FR 49126, August 13, 2013, which provides the framework for the current collection, required for the first time that facilities-based mobile broadband providers directly submit deployment data, representing nationwide coverage areas, as well as required minimum advertised or expected speeds for those coverage areas. Coverage areas are broken down by technology and spectrum band. The current data collection is intended to represent where consumers should expect to receive mobile broadband services at the minimum speeds set by the providers in their marketplace, and it was designed to minimize burdens and allow flexibility for providers. Providers, and not the Commission, decide the speeds of service they offer and may choose among different reasonable bases for substantiating their Form 477 filings.

    6. The Commission experience in analyzing and working with the Form 477 data has shown, however, that the Form 477 data could be improved further to better understand the mobile broadband service that consumers actually experience. As noted above, service providers are required to file, and certify the accuracy of, shapefiles representing those areas where, for a specified technology, “users should expect the minimum advertised upload and download data speeds associated with that network technology.” Questions have arisen in various contexts regarding the bases for certain filings and the extent to which those filings reflect actual user experience. The Commission to date has not systematically examined the precise underlying methodologies that are used by service providers in generating their data nor has it investigated whether actual consumer experience has diverged substantially from the Form 477 filings. Moreover, providers' minimum advertised or expected speeds have, to date, been treated as confidential, limiting the ability of policymakers and consumers to compare offerings among service providers from this data collection. Also, because service providers select their own methodologies for determining the coverage and speeds provided, these methodologies tend to vary among providers. These varying methodologies make it difficult for the Commission to compare coverage areas and minimum reported speeds, as the underlying meanings of what the coverage and speed information depict may differ among service providers. Also, current Form 477 filings typically do not include meaningful information about the methodologies by which service providers are generating their coverage contours.

    7. Enhancing the Current Data Collection. The Commission seeks comment on the most appropriate way to retain the benefits of the current Form 477 data collection while introducing certain improvements. Is there a way by which the Commission can improve its current data collection to better understand and evaluate the actual consumer experience? As part of this approach, the Commission proposes to make service providers' minimum advertised or expected speeds publicly available (as described below in Section II.C.1.a.). Should the Commission require that filers submit their mobile deployment files as rasters (raster datasets “are commonly used for representing and managing imagery, digital elevation models,” or “as a way to represent point, line, and polygon features.”), as well as, or instead of, shapefiles? Would the publication of the minimum advertised speed plus a more meaningful disclosure of the methodologies used by individual service providers allow a better reflection of actual consumer experience, and enhance the ability of policymakers and consumers to compare across service providers?

    8. Standardized Predictive Propagation Model. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on requiring the submission of standardized propagation models for 4G LTE and later-generational technologies. Should the Commission require filers to use predictive propagation models to prepare their Form 477 deployment filings? If so, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which it should take additional steps to specify possible eligible models for this purpose, and to standardize to some extent the output of those models as well as certain input parameters, with the goal of allowing more meaningful comparisons among service providers' mobile broadband deployment. For instance, should the Commission require that deployment shapefiles represent coverage at median speeds as well as speeds at the cell edge? If so, how should the Commission decide the specified speeds? Or, for instance, the Commission could specify a median download speed of 10 Mbps with an edge speed of 3 Mbps. Would this be appropriate, and if not, why not? Should the Commission also consider setting a cell edge upload speed such as a voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) requirement or an upload speed of 1 Mbps, or would an upload speed lower than 1 Mbps be appropriate, and if so, why?

    9. What input parameters would the Commission need to standardize to allow for meaningful comparison among providers' LTE data submissions? As examples, should the Commission standardize, or specify reasonable ranges for, any of the following parameters, and, if so, why: (1) Location of cells in decimal latitude and longitude; (2) channel bandwidth in MHz; (3) signal strength; (4) signal quality with signal to noise ratio; (5) cell loading factors; or (6) terrain provided at a minimum resolution of three arc-seconds? What is the minimum set of parameters the Commission would need to standardize to allow for meaningful comparisons among service providers? To what extent should the providers be free to determine their speeds? To what extent would these predictive models provide the most accurate predictions of actual consumer experience? Would submissions of standardized predictive propagation models with prescribed parameters be too burdensome on smaller service providers? If so, how could the Commission ensure it receives standardized submissions from all providers without unduly burdening small service providers?

    10. Supplement Data Collections with On-The-Ground Data. To better evaluate the actual consumer experience under the approaches above, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should require some “on-the-ground” data as part of any Form 477 data collection. The previously discussed data collections would be based on the coverage and speeds that theoretically should be achieved based on the service provider's decision on its own submitted propagation model, or some other reasonable methodology of its choosing, or a propagation model with standardized parameters as specified by the Commission. The collection of on-the-ground data would supplement the model-based data, improving the understanding of how the theoretical data relates to actual consumer experience. For instance, comparing results of theoretical propagation models and actual speed test data from Ookla indicate that propagation model parameters such as signal strength and speed may not be as closely correlated to the theoretical prediction when analyzing actual on-the-ground data in a particular geographic area. To more accurately reflect consumer experience, should some actual speed test data, aggregated up to a certain geographic level, be required? How could the Commission impose such a requirement without being unduly burdensome? Are there data of this kind that service providers already generate during the ordinary course of business which would be less burdensome to collect?

    11. Incorporation of New Mobile Wireless Technologies. The 2013 Form 477 Order provided for reporting by various existing technologies but did not provide for the reporting of data for new wireless technologies, such as 5G. Should the Commission require separate reporting of 5G mobile broadband deployment? Are there any aspects of 5G mobile broadband services that would suggest a need to represent deployment on Form 477 differently from 4G LTE and other mobile technologies? For instance, what are the specific use cases for mobile 5G service that the Commission should consider when collecting data to accurately represent 5G services being deployed to consumers? Should the Commission define 5G for the purposes of the Form 477 data collection, and, if so, how? Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether and, if so, in what circumstances, should the Form 477 take into account the deployment of facilities used in non-traditional ways in offering wireless services to consumers? For example, while Wi-Fi facilities traditionally have provided consumers with portable, not mobile, wireless connectivity, should the Form 477 track deployment of such facilities when offered to consumers in conjunction with resold mobile service? Might there develop other wireless services based exclusively on the integration of numerous unlicensed facilities, such as Wi-Fi routers, that might warrant tracking in Form 477? If so, under what circumstances, and how should any such facilities deployment be reported?

    12. Mobile Satellite Broadband Service. Satellite operators today may provide both fixed and mobile broadband service in the same spectrum. Considering the small but growing market for satellite mobile broadband, would it be appropriate to make additional modifications to Form 477 to include satellite broadband data in the mobile broadband data collection, and, if so, how?

    13. The 2013 Form 477 Order, while modernizing the data collection generally, also ensured that, for the first time, the Form 477 data collection would require the submission of mobile broadband deployment data. Specifically, the 2013 Form 477 Order required that filers submit their mobile broadband deployment data by unique combinations of technology, spectrum band utilized, and minimum advertised or expected speed.

    14. Under the current Form 477 reporting framework, facilities-based providers of mobile wireless broadband service are required to submit shapefiles depicting their broadband network coverage areas for each transmission technology deployed in each frequency band. Although the Commission in the 2013 Form 477 Order concluded that collecting deployment information by spectrum band would enable it “to analyze deployment in different spectrum bands” and “facilitate the formulation of sound and informed spectrum policies,” to date the Commission has not used the spectrum band information from Form 477 in its mobile broadband coverage analysis.

    15. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement that mobile broadband providers submit their broadband deployment data by spectrum band. The Commission anticipates that eliminating the requirement to provide spectrum band information would greatly streamline and reduce the burdens on providers by reducing the number of shapefiles (and the amount of the associated underlying data processing) they are required to submit. For example, a provider currently providing LTE in four spectrum bands would only have to submit one shapefile representing its coverage rather than four shapefiles. Moreover, currently the Commission is not aware of any significant purpose for which these data might be used, although the Commission seeks comment on whether to continue to collect these data as they might be helpful for analysis in future proceedings. The Commission also seeks comment on any alternative approaches it should consider in lieu of adopting the streamlining proposal. For example, should the Commission consider adopting an alternative process under which providers might provide a list of bands and the associated amount of spectrum used to provision various mobile technologies by some geography, such as the CMA? Would this approach be less burdensome than the requirement to submit shapefiles for each spectrum band, particularly for smaller providers? Would this approach be beneficial by providing data that would allow the Commission to track more easily new spectrum deployments? Would it, for instance, provide a valuable source of information regarding the timing and provision of LTE on 3.5 GHz spectrum as well as the deployment of 5G services in the various low, mid, and high spectrum bands?

    16. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment about whether to eliminate or modify the requirement that mobile broadband providers report coverage information for each technology deployed in their networks. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should simplify the filing process by requiring that coverage maps be provided for four categories of technology—3G, 4G non-LTE, 4G LTE, and 5G—rather than by each specific broadband technology, and how these categories should be defined. Are these categories defined and distinct enough to ensure accurate and meaningful reporting? Are the distinctions between categories, such as 4G versus 5G, clear enough for the data to be meaningful and for respondents to accurately submit data? Will the Commission need to specify which technologies correspond to which category? Currently, the Form 477 instructions set out specific technology codes for nine different mobile technologies. In the Commission's experience, the separate reporting of coverage information by every one of these nine specific mobile technologies has not added useful information for the purposes of Commission decision-making, and such information is not currently used in its analysis of the data received. The Commission seeks comment on whether eliminating the requirement or modifying the information required to be reported in this manner would be a significant reduction in the filing burden.

    17. The Commission turns next to its consideration of mobile broadband service availability data. Currently, mobile broadband providers are required to submit data where their service is “available.” To comply with this requirement, mobile broadband providers must submit a comma separated values (CSV) file of all census tracts where the provider's mobile wireless broadband service is advertised and available to actual and potential subscribers. This requirement was designed to identify those geographic areas where a service provider has coverage but is not affirmatively offering service to subscribers through a local retail presence.

    18. The Commission's experience with the collection of this information, however, has shown that the mobile broadband service availability data that providers submit generally do not reflect their local retail presence. Instead, the Commission has found that filers claim that their service is available beyond where they may have a local retail presence. In view of its experience with these data, the Commission seeks comment about the continued significance of local retail presence information. The Commission proposes eliminating the requirement to submit mobile broadband service availability data, as it is not producing accurate information about where services are affirmatively available to American consumers.

    19. Next, the Commission seeks comment about how the Commission might revise its data collection on the deployment of mobile voice services. The 2013 Form 477 Order required filers to submit the voice coverage boundaries “where providers expect to be able to make, maintain, and receive voice calls.” The Order also required that providers submit voice deployment shapefiles representing geographic coverage nationwide for each technology and frequency band. The Commission seeks comment about whether to revise these requirements.

    20. The Commission continues to view the collection of mobile voice deployment data as important for tracking changes in the mobile landscape and informing the Commission's analysis of mobile voice services that are available to consumers. The Commission seeks comment, however, on whether there are ways that it may refine its collection of this information to reduce burdens for providers. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the requirement to submit voice coverage data by technology and spectrum band. Does the Commission still need these data to accurately evaluate the mobile voice services that are available to subscribers? Is the distinction between voice and broadband coverage significant, or do providers most often include mobile voice coverage wherever they have some form of broadband coverage? If providers include mobile voice coverage wherever they have broadband coverage, should the Commission revise its requirements to allow providers to simply check a box indicating that they provide voice coverage wherever they have a particular mobile broadband technology? How would the Commission account for areas in which a provider provides only mobile voice services?

    21. To the extent that the collection of mobile voice deployment data by technology is still necessary, should the Commission continue to collect GSM, CDMA and Analog voice data separately? Should the Commission collect separate voice deployment data for VoLTE and mobile switched voice? The Commission anticipates that revising the data collection in this manner would help the Commission assess where providers claim to have VoLTE coverage and assist efforts in the areas of emergency response. The Commission seeks comment on the importance of collecting information about VoLTE coverage.

    22. The Commission seeks comment on how it can improve the data collected on mobile broadband and voice subscription. Form 477 currently requires that mobile voice and broadband subscriber information be submitted at the state level. Given the aggregate nature of the current data collection, the Commission currently uses telephone number-based Number Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) data for its subscriber and market share analysis in secondary market transaction review and other proceedings. The NRUF data, however, have certain limitations; for example, NRUF data are more a measure of the number of mobile wireless connections than subscribers. It is increasingly more difficult to determine the number of mobile subscribers through the use of NRUF data because consumers are more likely to use more than one mobile device that have been assigned telephone numbers—particularly non-voice devices, such as Internet access devices (e.g., wireless modem cards and mobile Wi-Fi hotspots), e-readers, tablets, and telematics systems. Also, predicting the number of devices using this dataset is difficult as some mobile devices do not have telephone numbers assigned to them. Moreover, because a subscriber can move and retain the same mobile number, subscribers may not be attributed to the state in which the subscriber receives or pays for service in some cases (someone with an 812 Southern Indiana area code may live in California, for example, but is attributed to Indiana for NRUF purposes.).

    23. With respect to the existing Form 477 subscription data, because subscriber data are collected at the state level, they are not sufficiently granular for meaningful evaluation of mobile service subscribership, as noted. Subscription data at a more disaggregated geographic level would significantly improve the Commission's ability to provide more accurate mobile competition analyses, particularly in the secondary market transactions review.

    24. While the Commission's 2011 Form 477 NPRM, 76 FR 10827, February 28, 2011, raised the issue of requiring mobile subscribership reporting at a more granular level, the 2013 Form 477 Order did not change the state-level reporting requirement. In this FNPRM, the Commission proposes requiring mobile providers to aggregate their subscribership data to the census tract level, based on each subscriber's billing address. This information would be collected as CSV files and would provide a more granular understanding of where consumers are subscribing to service.

    25. Would collecting subscribership data at the census-tract level be sufficient to improve the quality of the Commission's data on subscribership? Are subscribers' billing addresses sufficiently correlated with the areas in which subscribers use their mobile wireless devices to be meaningful in the Commission's competitive analyses, and if not, what else should the Commission consider? Does the answer differ for residential and business accounts? Should the Commission consider requiring subscribership data for a different geographic area? For example, while reporting subscribership at the census-tract level would parallel the requirement for fixed service, what are the costs and benefits of reporting at a different geographic level? Whatever the geographic level adopted, the Commission seeks comment on whether using the billing address to assign subscribers to a census tract would be appropriate or, in the alternative, whether using the customer place of primary use address would be preferable as it may be less burdensome for providers. How should filers assign resold lines and broadband-only lines to the more granular geographic level? How should the Commission consider subscribership with respect to 5G services and the IoT? What metrics might the Commission consider in measuring subscribership?

    26. For each census block in which providers submit fixed broadband deployment data, providers must report whether they deploy “mass market/consumer” service and/or “business/enterprise/government” service. All facilities-based fixed broadband providers, including cable operators, must report the census blocks where they make fixed broadband services available to residential and business customers at bandwidths exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction. The Commission currently requires providers offering business/enterprise/government services to report the maximum downstream and upstream contractual or guaranteed data throughput rate (committed information rate (CIR)) available in each reported census block. If, in a particular block, providers offer business/enterprise/government services that do not have a contractual or guaranteed data throughput rate (i.e., they are “best efforts” services), then the maximum downstream and upstream contractual or guaranteed data throughput rates should be reported as “zero.”

    27. The Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the separate reporting of available contractual or guaranteed data throughput rates for business/enterprise/government services, while maintaining separate indicators for mass market/consumer service and/or business/enterprise/government deployment. The Commission uses the Form 477 data in connection with many of its proceedings and programs, including the Broadband Progress Report, Universal Service Fund proceedings, the 2017 BDS Order, 82 FR 25660, June 2, 2017, as well as mergers and other transactions. In the Commission's experience, the information collected for consumer/residential/mass market data already provides the necessary bandwidth data in each of these cases. The added CIR data for business/enterprise/government services do not appear to provide additional useful insight, while collecting these data as a separate category imposes an additional burden on filers. The Commission therefore proposes to discontinue the collection of CIR data and seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on the best way to collect data reflecting the speeds offered to business/enterprise/government end-users in the absence of CIR data. Will the maximum advertised down- and upload speeds used for mass-market work for business best-efforts data collection? How can the Commission capture speeds for business/enterprise/government end-users that are not best-efforts?

    28. In interactions with filers, staff also have found that filers may be reporting CIR data incorrectly in some cases. It is not unusual for filers to report speeds as contractually guaranteed, when in fact they are best-efforts services. As the technology for providing business/enterprise/government services continues to evolve, along with the demand for them, providers increasingly use a variety of technologies in addition to TDM and fiber to serve customers, including mass market service, HFC, UNEs, and Dark Fiber—with and without contractual service level guarantees. If commenters believe that the Commission should continue to separately collect bandwidth information specific to contractually guaranteed business/enterprise/government services, how can the Commission ensure that providers accurately characterize their offerings? Should the Commission require filers to report the maximum bandwidths of business service offered in a given census block and indicate whether the service is best efforts and/or contractually guaranteed? Alternatively, should the Commission require fixed broadband providers to continue to report whether they offer business/enterprise/government services, but no longer report any speed data associated with such services? The Commission notes that this approach would lessen the burden on filers, but would it also help ensure more accurate reporting? Would information about business/enterprise/government services still be valuable in the absence of speed data, or would it be better to remove the requirement to report these data altogether?

    29. Facilities-based providers of fixed broadband must provide in their Form 477 submissions a list of all census blocks where they make broadband connections available to end-user premises, along with the last-mile technology or technologies used. These deployment data represent the areas where a provider does, or could, without an extraordinary commitment of resources, provide service. Thus, the meaning of “availability” in each listed census block can be multifaceted, even within the data of a single filer. In a particular listed block, the provider may have subscribers or it may not. At the same time, the provider may be able to take on additional subscribers or it may not. The various combinations have varying implications that make it difficult to understand availability. Specifically, if a block was listed by a provider, it is impossible to tell whether residents of that block seeking service could turn to that provider for service or whether the provider would be unable or unwilling to take on additional subscribers. This may limit the value of these data to inform policy-making and as a tool for consumers and businesses to determine the universe of potential Internet service providers at their location.

    30. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require fixed broadband providers to indicate whether total customers served on a particular technology could be increased in each census block listed when they report deployment data. It seeks comment on whether all fixed broadband providers should be required to identify on Form 477 three categories of service areas for each technology code: (1) Areas where there are both existing customers served by a particular last-mile technology, and total number of customers using that technology can, and would, be readily increased within a standard interval upon request; (2) areas where existing customers are served but no net-additional customers using that technology will be accommodated; and (3) areas where there are no existing customers for a particular technology but new customers will be added within a standard interval upon request. If it determines to add such a requirement, the Commission seeks comment on how providers would identify the relevant geographic units. For example, if a satellite provider could not increase the total number of new subscribers in a spot beam, would they be able to indicate the speed and/or the capacity to increase the total number of subscribers at various locations in the beam at the block or sub-block level? Would this modification to the current requirements elicit data that are more accurate and useful to the Commission, other policymakers, and the public than the deployment data currently collected? These distinctions could help policymakers understand which areas may be limited for service expansion using specific technologies and which areas may be capable of increasing the total number of subscribers using specific technologies. Doing so would offer the Commission, as well as other users of these data, a more nuanced picture of deployment. It would be possible to see, for example, where providers are building capacity, using which technologies, and similarly where they are not.

    31. The Commission seeks comment on the specific costs for fixed broadband providers to report such data, and how to ensure that reporting the data would be as minimally burdensome on filers as possible. Is it reasonable, for example, to assume that fixed broadband providers are aware of whether they have the capacity in place to make their service available and add new subscribers in a particular location? Do providers routinely maintain information about their service areas that would enable them to provide this information readily, or would this proposal require them to develop new information? The Commission seeks comment on the estimated time required to produce the data and ask commenters to provide the incremental costs of any new software development in addition to the average wage rate estimate. Commenters should also address whether technical or other features of particular transmission technologies would raise issues that would make this information more or less difficult to report.

    32. As previously stated, Form 477 collects fixed broadband deployment data on the census-block level. In the 2013 Form 477 Order, the Commission considered and rejected collecting the data on a more granular level. Although recognizing that more granularity may be beneficial in the context of many of its proceedings, the Commission concluded at that time that the administrative and data-quality challenges to collecting data below the census-block level likely would make such an endeavor impractical.

    33. More recently, the Commission has requested that specific providers involved in certain of its proceedings provide fixed broadband deployment data on a more granular basis than by census block. For example, the Commission currently collects location-level data from recipients of USF funding to assess whether they are meeting their buildout requirements. The Commission has found this more granular data to be extremely useful in understanding issues surrounding fixed broadband deployment in these contexts and believes that it could be useful if residential deployment data in particular were more generally available to the Commission. The Commission notes that stakeholders have recommended collecting and reporting deployment data at various sub-census block geographies, including at the street-address or parcel level.

    34. The Commission seeks comment on giving fixed-broadband providers the option of reporting their deployment data by filing geospatial data showing coverage areas (i.e., polygons of coverage filed via shapefiles or rasters) as providers of mobile broadband and voice service currently are required to do—instead of reporting a list of census blocks. This could reduce the burden on filers. Since the current Form 477 interface can accept geospatial data, accepting similar data from fixed broadband providers should not present a significant technical burden for the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on whether providers of wired, fixed-terrestrial or fixed-satellite broadband routinely store their broadband footprints as geospatial coverage data. To the extent providers do not routinely store data in such a format, or to ensure comparability among different providers' data, the Commission also seeks comment on how to specify a single methodology for determining the coverage area of a network. What burdens would be associated with creating such geospatial data? In addition, since the Commission lacks the locations of individual homes (or businesses), knowing the areas served does not provide information about the location or number of homes that have or lack service (i.e., it provides information on the areas that have or lack service, not the homes that lack service). Should the Commission assume that all homes within a block have service even if only a fraction of a block's area has service? Should the Commission assume that the fraction of a partially served block with the service correlates with a fraction of homes within that block that have service? This would mean determining what fraction of people or homes (e.g., tenths or hundredths) have had broadband deployed. Over larger areas, such fractional people or homes would likely tend to reflect overall coverage; but over smaller areas would reflect a probabilistic estimate of coverage rather than an accurate count of people or homes lacking coverage. The Commission seeks comment about how it could make the best use of such geospatial data to find the number and location of the unserved, and the value of such data compared to the burden of such a filing.

    35. The Commission also seeks comment on collecting data at a sub-census-block level. While collection of data by street address, for example, could increase the complexity and burden of the collection for both the Commission and the filers, the Commission seeks comment on the scope of this burden and potential corresponding benefits. For example, having national, granular broadband deployment data could greatly assist with any future disbursement of high-cost funds or universal service reverse auctions, assist consumers with locating broadband competition in their area, and with other broad public policy goals. With more than 130 million housing units in the country, an address-level dataset could have as many as roughly 750 million records for each filing; based on the scale of this dataset, a household-level collection could require significant additional time and other resources to establish and carry out. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there is a publicly available, nationwide data set containing the address and location (latitude and longitude; and for Multiple Dwelling Units (MDUs), possibly altitude information to distinguish data about units on different floors) for each housing unit in the country, such that filers, or the Commission could geocode street addresses. And, given that the number of housing units changes each year, the Commission is similarly unaware of a means to update such a data set or of publicly available and annually updated source of housing units or population counts in each block that is publicly available and updated annually. The Commission additionally seeks comment on whether the Commission should require providers to submit the service address for every housing unit at which service is available. While this approach would require the Commission to take on the cost of geocoding all the filings, it would potentially relieve burden on the industry. If the Commission requires service address reporting, the Commission seeks comment on ways it could make the reporting less burdensome on providers and the Commission. For example, should the Commission require specific formatting for submission of address-level data? In addition, how could Commission staff find latitude and longitude for addresses that do not provide a full match from a geocoding service?

    36. As an alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require providers to geocode all the addresses at which service is available. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits associated with this approach, and on ways that the Commission could ease the burden on filers. For example, should the Commission specify a single geocoding methodology to be used by all providers (e.g., require all providers to use a single geocoding service, and specify how to handle any geocoding partial matches or failures), or require that providers file a latitude and longitude measured in the field? If the Commission accepts multiple geocoding methodologies, or a mix of geocoding and field geolocating, can Commission staff determine when two points filed by different providers represent the same location? Do providers typically know every address to which they could provision service? Are there ways that the Commission could improve its submission portal to make filing this kind of data less burdensome on providers?

    37. The Commission also seeks comment on other sub-census block alternatives, such as collecting data about what street segments providers cover. This approach could avoid some of the problems with address-level collections—providers would not need to know every address they cover, only the geographic areas; and there would be no need for geocoding. Such a collection would provide an indication of the road segments where service is available (or, perhaps, road segments along which facilities run), and by extension, road segments along which there is no service or facilities. However, without a data set of housing-unit locations, this method would not yield information on how many homes are along road segments with service and how many are along road segments that lack service. Service might be concentrated in areas where people live in some blocks but not available to all homes in other blocks. A street-segment data collection would not allow the Commission to differentiate those two very different possibilities. In short, lacking a data set with the location of each housing unit, this approach would provide a map of roads that lack fixed-broadband service or facilities, not an indication of the number or location of homes or people that lack service. The Commission seeks comment on these conclusions, and on suggestions for resolving these concerns. What are the costs and benefits of adopting a street segment approach for data collection?

    38. The Commission notes that NTIA collected sub-block level data for blocks larger than two square miles for the National Broadband Map, but also that such data did not provide an indication of where homes lacked broadband availability. For such large blocks, some providers filed data indicating road lengths along which they stated their service was available, others provided points where service was available, and fixed wireless providers supplied geospatial data indicating their coverage areas. However, because no database indicated where the housing units were actually located within these large blocks, the number of housing units that could actually receive service could not be determined. In other words, while the data indicated what areas did not have service available, the data did not provide information on whether any homes or people in the areas lacked service, or whether the parts of the census blocks with service available included all homes. The National Broadband Map took different approaches to dealing with this uncertainty over time, for example, treating partially served blocks as being half served plus-or-minus half (i.e., indicating a literal uncertainty); or creating a random distribution of housing units within a block and determining the fraction of those random points that were covered by the reported service (i.e., creating pseudo-data to fill in for what was not known). In short, the sub-block level data provided a statistical estimate, at best, of coverage.

    39. Another approach to understanding sub-block coverage would be to require broadband providers to identify blocks that they can fully serve. Under this approach, in addition to filing data on technology and download and upload speed, providers would submit data indicating, for each block, whether they can make service available to all locations (residential and business) within the block. The Commission seeks comment on whether fixed broadband providers, particularly providers of wired broadband services, know whether any locations within each block are beyond the reach of their facilities, such that they could not make service available within a typical service interval. How burdensome would it be for providers to make such a determination for each block in their footprint? Would such data be more useful to the Commission than the fixed deployment data currently collected? If the Commission had information about fully covered blocks, it would also know, for each provider, which blocks are not fully covered. Should the Commission collect geocoded deployment data for blocks that are less-than-fully covered from each provider? Collecting sub-block geocoded data for only a subset of blocks would address some of the challenges outlined above simply by reducing the amount of data to be collected and filed, but would not address other challenges, such as the accuracy of geocoding, or the challenge of determining where locations lie along road segments. The Commission seeks comment on how to overcome the challenges identified in collecting sub-block data, as well as the benefits and burdens of seeking more granular data for a subset of blocks.

    40. In sum, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should move to a more granular basis for reporting deployment data and, if so, what basis would be appropriate. For each basis they support, commenters should explain in detail the methodology or approach they propose for capturing the data in a sufficiently uniform format to facilitate processing (e.g., geocoding, latitude/longitude, address). Commenters also should address the expected burden to filers and to the Commission. Commenters should also articulate the relative benefits of each approach. For example, do filers routinely maintain the data needed to comply with the reporting requirements and, if not, what costs will be associated with obtaining them, both at the outset and on an ongoing basis? Are there other methodologies for collecting fixed broadband deployment data that have lower associated costs relative to the expected benefit?

    41. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should modify the Form 477 requirements relating to satellite broadband deployment data to address issues unique to satellite broadband service. Since satellite providers initially reported that they could provide service to millions of census blocks, the Form 477 Instructions were amended to reduce burden on such filers by giving them the opportunity to streamline their data under certain circumstances. Specifically, the Form 477 Instructions state that “[s]atellite providers that believe their deployment footprint can be best represented by every block in a particular state or set of states may abbreviate their upload file by submitting only one block-level record for each state included in the footprint and providing a note in the Explanations and Comments section.” Through the use of that method, one or more satellite providers have indicated on Form 477 that they deploy satellite broadband at certain speeds ubiquitously across the United States. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize burdens for providers with large footprints to report while maintaining variation in the data.

    42. The Commission seeks comment specifically on eliminating the option to file abbreviated fixed broadband deployment data for each state. Will removing the option of filing abbreviated fixed broadband deployment data improve the accuracy of the data? Should satellite broadband providers instead report a list of all census blocks, similar to other fixed broadband providers? What if any incremental burden on satellite providers is likely to result from eliminating the abbreviated option? Are there any other options for satellite broadband providers?

    43. The Commission notes that satellite-based broadband networks, like all fixed-broadband networks, have capacity limits in some parts of the network, and that networks are not generally capable of serving all potential customers across a large footprint (such as the continental United States) at once. The Commission seeks comment on whether satellite's unique characteristics (e.g., the relatively large area over which satellite providers state they provide coverage, the inherent flexibility of wide-area beams and spot beams, or the difficulty of adding new satellite capacity beyond current space station limits) make satellite coverage, in particular, more difficult for providers to characterize at the census block level. Would revising deployment reporting for all fixed providers, as discussed above, address issues that may affect the accuracy of satellite reporting? If the Commission determines not to revise the deployment reporting obligations for all fixed broadband providers, are there steps it should take to address specific issues relating to satellite deployment, such as capacity constraints in areas in which service is currently reported as “available”? If satellite does face unique challenges, how can the Commission change the data collection to improve data for satellite while maintaining comparability to other fixed-broadband data? In the future, the Commission will also need to account for large Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) satellite constellations that plan to provide broadband services. The Commission seeks comment on what steps it can take to achieve this.

    44. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if it does not revise deployment reporting requirements to allow all providers of fixed broadband service to file shapefiles or rasters in lieu of census blocks, it should allow satellite providers to do so. Would satellite providers face lower burdens and/or would the data quality improve if the Commission accepted geospatial data rather than block-level data from satellite providers? The Commission notes, as discussed in the 2013 Form 477 Order, that satellite broadband providers already submit coverage-area information as part of a satellite application or letter of intent. While information submitted at the application phase is extremely useful to that process, the Commission continues to believe that it is essential to gather data regularly via Form 477 to reflect as-built, rather than as-planned, network deployment. Given satellite providers' experience in developing geospatial data, the Commission seeks comment on whether requiring satellite deployment data to be filed in that format would significantly reduce filer burden.

    45. Are there other issues unique to satellite that affect the accuracy or utility of the data the Commission collects and, if so, what approaches could it take to address them? What are the costs and benefits of these approaches?

    46. Rate-of-return carriers currently submit their fixed voice subscription (FVS) counts by study area to USAC on an annual basis, and the FCC publishes those data. The Commission believes these data provide useful information to the public about the extent of voice subscriptions in each carrier's study area. However, under a rule recently adopted in the CAF proceeding, rate-of-return carriers switching to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model and Alaska Plan carriers may no longer report such data to USAC for their legacy study area boundaries. In order to maintain the reporting of this information, the Commission proposes to use the Form 477 FVS data, in conjunction with Study Area Boundary data, to develop and publish aggregated voice line counts for every study area, to mirror the approach used to collect these data from price-cap carriers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on the methodology for generating this metric. While the Commission has generally determined not to routinely release filer-specific data collected on Form 477, in this case, the information, collected via another source, has been routinely publicized. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the value of using the Form 477 data for this purpose outweighs any associated confidentiality interest in the confidentiality of the data. The Commission seeks comment on this and on whether the use of Form 477 data is the most efficient and effective means for collecting data.

    47. The Commission proposes that certain collected data that are currently treated as confidential be made public. First, the Commission proposes that minimum advertised or expected speed data for mobile broadband services should not be treated as confidential and it proposes releasing such data for all subsequent Form 477 filings going forward. The Commission notes that, in the context of the Mobility Fund II proceeding, several parties have expressed opposition to a proposal to release minimum advertised or expected 4G LTE speed data. Currently, the providers' Form 477 minimum advertised speeds have been treated as confidential and consumers and policy makers have been limited in their ability to compare offerings from this collection. This information, however, is already available from other sources. For example, providers routinely make available on their Web sites information about the typical upload and download speeds their network offers in particular geographic areas. Because speed data information is publicly available, the Commission believes that it is not commercially sensitive, and its release will not cause competitive harm. In addition, the Commission expects that dissemination of minimum advertised or expected speed data to the public would promote a more informed, efficient market by providing information that can aid in independent analyses. Making such data available to the public provides consumers, states, and experts the opportunity to review the data to ensure the accuracy of the information. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. To the extent the Commission collects any other speed data that are currently treated as confidential, it seeks comment on whether such data should also be made available to the public, again to promote a more informed, efficient market and aid in independent competitive analyses.

    48. Similarly, the Commission proposes that, if detailed propagation model parameters are submitted in the Form 477 filings, some of these parameters should be treated as public information, as the Commission believes that such parameters are not competitively sensitive. For example, terrain resolution, signal strength, and the loading factor are higher-level aggregate parameters and should not be treated as confidential. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. If filers believe that certain propagation model parameters should be treated as confidential for competitive reasons, then they should provide a list of those parameters, and explain the underlying reasons why.

    49. National-Level, Fixed Broadband Subscriber Counts. The Commission has historically determined not to make filer-specific broadband subscription data collected on Form 477 routinely available to the public. Consistent with this determination, the Commission has redacted and aggregated data as necessary to prevent indirect disclosure of filer-specific data. The Commission has noted, however, that increased public access to disaggregated subscription data could have significant benefits. The Commission believes that these benefits may outweigh any confidentiality interests for some disaggregated subscription data. In particular, the Commission believes that making public the number of subscribers at each reported speed on a national level would provide a meaningful metric of the state of broadband adoption in the U.S. Although this change would not involve expressly identifying the specific filers submitting the information, it might be possible to infer with reasonable certainty the provider or providers reporting subscribers at higher speeds, for which fewer providers offer service. The Commission believes however, that any competitive harm to the affected providers is likely to be slight, because the numbers would be aggregated to the national level and similar information is routinely made public by these entities through the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other disclosures. The Commission seeks comment on whether disclosure of this information would be beneficial and, if so, whether any measures are necessary to ensure that the interests of the filers are protected.

    50. Release of Disaggregated Subscriber Data. As another avenue for realizing the potential benefits of greater public access to subscription data, the Commission seeks comment on whether certain types of disaggregated subscriber data should be made public after a certain period of time has passed. The Commission believes that, over time, the potential for competitive harm from the release of filer-specific subscription data likely diminishes. The Commission seeks comment on whether this is the case in connection with specific types of subscriber information collected on Form 477 and, if so, what period of time provides adequate protection from harm for each. What factors should be weighed in determining which categories of raw data files to release? What would be the public interest and legal justifications for releasing or not releasing different types of raw data files?

    51. Other Data. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other Form 477 data that the Commission should consider making public. While the Commission understands confidentiality concerns associated with making aspects of these data public, there are also significant potential benefits to consumers and public policy. The Commission invites comment on what data should be made publicly available, and how to mitigate competitive and other concerns.

    52. Form 477 is currently a semi-annual collection. In the 2011 Form 477 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on other time frames, and on different time frames for providers based upon size, but did not address those issues in the 2013 Report and Order. The Commission seeks to refresh the record on whether to shift to an annual collection for all filers, for certain filers (such as smaller filers), or for certain parts of the form. Are there some types of data (e.g., the speed of fixed-broadband-deployment subscriptions, or the coverage of mobile broadband deployment) that change so quickly that an annual filing would obscure significant developments that should be captured by the Commission's reports? The Commission specifically seeks comment on the potential impacts of switching to annual, instead of semi-annual, reporting for all Form 477 filers, both in terms of the utility of the data collected and the burden on filers. While the overall burden associated with Form 477 likely would decrease by switching to annual filing, the Commission seeks comment on whether the per-round burden on an annual basis would increase to some degree and whether this would be manageable. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is more efficient for a filer's employees to undertake this collection once a year given employee turnover and the greater amount of change to the data on an annual basis compared to a more routine semi-annual filing with a smaller amount of change to the data.

    53. The Commission also seeks comment on whether collecting on a twelve-month cycle would render the data less useful for its purposes, given the rate of broadband deployment and uptake, particularly at higher speeds, industrywide. For example, how would an annual collection affect Commission policymaking? Would it be more difficult to analyze industry trends—such as competition, entry/expansion, adoption of newer technologies and faster speeds—with only annual data? On a one-year cycle, the most recently filed data available for analysis may be up to six months older than it is now. Would the lack of more recent data unduly impair the Commission's ability to carry out transaction review effectively or generate comprehensive and up-to-date Broadband Progress reports?

    54. As part of its examination of the Form 477 collection, the Commission also seeks input on how it make the Form 477 data available to the public and stakeholders. How would the proposals described in this FNPRM affect the Commission's ability to process the data and make them available? Given current data and the proposals above, what approach should the Commission take with regard to the National Broadband Map (NBM) (www.broadbandmap.gov)? The Commission currently maintains access to the NBM, which relies on data collected by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration via the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) for data as of June, 2014. In addition, the Commission makes a number of maps available to help visualize more recent Form 477 data and makes Form 477 data available for download in various formats. The Commission believes that a searchable national map of the most recently available Form 477 broadband deployment data can have significant value for the public, industry, researchers and others. Such a map could also provide significant support for the Commission's own efforts in tracking broadband. The Commission therefore seeks input on whether, and how, it can use the Form 477 data most effectively to update the NBM.

    III. Procedural Matters

    55. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before the dates identified above. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    56. With this FNPRM, the Commission initiates a further proceeding to examine the effectiveness of the Commission's Form 477—the principal tool used by the Commission to gather data on communications services, including broadband services, to help inform policymaking. In establishing Form 477, the Commission envisioned that the data collected would help it better assess the availability of broadband services, such as high-speed Internet access service, and the development of competition for local telephone service, materially improving its policymaking in those areas. From the outset, the Commission sought to minimize the burden the collection requirements would impose on filers. The Commission's goal in this FNPRM is to eliminate the collection of certain information on Form 477 that the Commission believes is not sufficiently useful when compared with the burden imposed on filers in providing it and to explore how the Commission can revise other aspects of the data collection to increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the public. These steps continue the Commission's efforts since the creation of Form 477 to identify and eliminate unnecessary or overly-burdensome filing requirements while improving the value of the data the Commission continues to collect. This FNPRM proposes several ways to streamline the information collected in Form 477 as well as suggests ways to ensure Form 477 data are as accurate and reliable as possible.

    57. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is contained in sections 3, 10, 201(b), 230, 254(e), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. 153, 160, 201(b), 254(e), 303(r), 332.

    58. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

    59. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,215 small organizations. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

    60. The potential modifications proposed in this FNPRM if adopted, could, at least initially, impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities. In order to evaluate any new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements that may result from the actions proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission has sought input from the parties on various matters. As indicated above, the FNPRM seeks comment on modifications to the Commission's existing Form 477 to minimize burdens on carriers while enhancing the utility of the data the Commission collects. The proposals include removing some previous Form 477 reporting requirements, altering some existing requirements, and supplementing the Form 477 collection with some additional, directed proposals to improve the data collected. For example, the Commission proposes to remove some requirements that do not appear to provide salient data, but the Commission also proposes collecting new or different data to ensure the data capture the most relevant new advances in service offerings and availability. Nevertheless, the Commission anticipates that the removal or modification of some Form 477 reporting requirements will lead to a long-term reduction in reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities.

    61. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    62. To evaluate options and alternatives should there be a significant economic impact on small entities as a result of actions that have been proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission has sought comment from the parties. The FNPRM seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might streamline its current requirements and thereby reduce the burdens on small providers and other filers. The Commission also seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might improve the usefulness of other aspects of the Form 477 to maximize the utility of the information the Commission continues to collect. For example, the Commission asks whether the Commission needs to collect mobile voice deployment data by technology and spectrum band, and whether the Commission should revise mobile voice deployment reporting requirements to allow a simple check instead of detailed information for some existing voice deployment reporting requirements. Steps such as these seek to reduce the types and amount of information the Commission collects, which results in more useful information, and also reduces burdens placed on small entities and others. In addition, other proposals the Commission outlines could, for example, limit the number of shapefiles (and the amount of the associated underlying data processing) providers are required to submit.

    63. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the FNPRM and this IRFA. In particular, the Commission seeks comment herein on the effect the various proposals described in the FNPRM, and summarized above, will have on small entities, and on what effect alternative Form 477 reporting requirements would have on those entities. The Commission also seeks comment from interested parties on any potential additional methods of reducing compliance burdens for small providers and ensuring the most useful information based on the Form 477 collection. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed on these topics as well as on other proposals and questions in the FNPRM that seek to reduce the burdens placed on small providers in both the mobile and fixed contexts will shape the final conclusions the Commission reaches, the final significant alternatives the Commission considers, and the actions the Commission ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.

    64. This document contains proposed modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    65. Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    IV. Ordering Clauses

    66. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 201(b), 214, 218-220, 251-252, 254, 303(r), 310, 332, 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201(b), 214, 218-220, 251-252, 254, 303(r), 310, 332, 403, and 1302 this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17901 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 163 Thursday, August 24, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 21, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by September 25, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Forest Service

    Title: National Visitor Use Monitoring, and Customer and Use Survey Techniques for Operations, Management, Evaluation and Research.

    OMB Control Number: 0596-0110.

    Summary of Collection: The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C., Sec. 1600-1614) and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) (Pub. L. 103-62) require a comprehensive assessment of present and anticipated uses, demand for and supply of renewable resources from the nation's public and private forests and rangelands. An important element in the reporting is the number of visits to National Forests and Grasslands, as well as to Wilderness Areas that the agency manages. The Forest Service will use the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey to collect the information.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Customer and Use Survey Techniques for Operations, Management, Evaluation and Research (CUSTOMER) study combines several different survey approaches to gather data describing visitors to and users of public recreation lands, including their trip activities, satisfaction levels, evaluations, demographic profiles, trip characteristics, spending, and annual visitation patterns. FS will use face-to-face interviewing for collecting information on-site as well as English and Spanish written survey instruments to be mailed back by respondents. The NVUM results and data are a source of data and information in addressing forest land management planning, national strategic planning, service to minorities, and identification of a forest's recreation niche. Conducting the collection less frequently puts information updates out of cycle with forest planning and other data preparations and reporting activities.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 45,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting; Quarterly; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 6,386.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17966 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0064] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fruits and Vegetables AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of certain fruits and vegetables into the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0064.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0064, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0064 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on regulations associated with the importation of fruits and vegetables, contact Mr. Tony Roman, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2242. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Fruits and Vegetables.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0128.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As authorized by the PPA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the importation of certain fruits and vegetables in accordance with the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-78).

    Section 319.56-25 provides the requirements for the importation of papayas from certain regions of Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama into the continental United States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The importation of these papayas requires the use of certain information collection activities, including phytosanitary certificates, maintaining fruit fly monitoring records, and labeling of boxes.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.025 hours per response.

    Respondents: Importers of fruits and vegetables and national plant protection organizations of exporting countries.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 119.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 163.81.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 19,493.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 480 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of August 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17875 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0047] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Citrus Black Spot AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    New information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of an information collection associated with the requirements for the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of citrus black spot.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0047.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0047, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0047 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on citrus black spot, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Citrus Black Spot.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-XXXX.

    Type of Request: Approval of a new information collection.

    Abstract: As authorized by the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or in cooperation with States, may carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers regulations to implement the PPA. Under the PPA, the Secretary may also issue regulations requiring plants and plant products moved in interstate commerce to be subject to remedial measures determined necessary to prevent the spread of the pest.

    APHIS issued Federal Orders for citrus black spot (CBS, Guignardia citricarpa) and established requirements for the movement of regulated articles such as citrus (Citrus spp.) fruit, all citrus plants and plant parts, including leaves for consumption, and any other products, articles, or means of conveyance that an inspector determines presents a risk of spreading CBS.

    CBS, a fungal disease marked by dark, speckled spots or blotches on the rinds of fruit, is an economically significant citrus disease. It causes early fruit drop, reduces crop yield, and renders the highly blemished fruit unmarketable. While all commercial citrus cultivars are susceptible to CBS, the most vulnerable are lemons and late-maturing varieties of oranges like Valencia. These varieties are widely grown commercially in Florida and in other citrus-producing areas of the United States. The greatest risk of transmission of CBS is associated with infected nursery stock and decomposing citrus leaves that have fallen in groves. There is also a risk of disease transmission if infected leaves, plant debris, or fruit are not adequately covered or secured during transport.

    To safeguard U.S. agriculture, APHIS requires the respondents listed below to complete information collection activities, such as compliance agreements, certificates, limited permits, individually numbered trip tickets, disposal site approvals, and inspections.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.26 hours per response.

    Respondents: U.S. producers, growers, packers, inspectors, individuals, and State officials.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 265.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 94.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 25,038.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 6,712 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of August 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17877 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0051] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Systems Approach for the Interstate Movement of Fresh, Mature Kaffir Lime, Curry, and Bael Leaves for Consumption From Areas Quarantined for Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    New information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of an information collection associated with the requirements for the interstate movement of fresh, mature Kaffir lime, curry, and bael leaves for consumption from areas quarantined for citrus greening and Asian citrus psyllid.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0051.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0051, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0051 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on fresh, mature Kaffir lime, curry, and bael leaves for consumption from areas quarantined for citrus greening and Asian citrus psyllid, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Systems Approach for the Interstate Movement of Fresh, Mature Kaffir Lime, Curry, and Bael Leaves for Consumption From Areas Quarantined for Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-XXXX.

    Type of Request: Approval of a new information collection.

    Abstract: As authorized by the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or in cooperation with States, may carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers regulations to implement the PPA. Under the PPA, the Secretary may also issue regulations and orders requiring plants and plant products moved in interstate commerce to be subject to remedial measures determined necessary to prevent the spread of the pest.

    The regulations in “Subpart—Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid” (7 CFR 301.76 through 301.76-11) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to control the artificial spread of citrus greening and Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) to noninfested areas. Citrus greening, also known as Huanglongbing disease of citrus, is considered to be one of the most serious citrus diseases in the world. Citrus greening is a bacterial disease that attacks the vascular system of host plants. This bacterial pathogen can be transmitted by grafting and, under laboratory conditions, by parasitic plants. The pathogen can also be transmitted by two insect vectors in the family Psyllidae, one of which is Diaphorina citri Kuwayama, ACP. ACP can also cause economic damage to citrus in groves and nurseries by direct feeding. Both adults and nymphs feed on young foliage, depleting the sap and causing galling or curling of leaves. High populations feeding on a citrus shoot can kill the growing tip.

    APHIS issued a Federal Order to allow the interstate movement of fresh, mature Kaffir lime, curry, and bael leaves intended for consumption if the listed requirements are followed. The requirements include information collection activities, such as compliance agreements (including a protocol document), limited permits, Federal certificates, inspections, and labeling requirements.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.18 hours per response.

    Respondents: U.S. producers, packers, and distributors of fresh, mature Kaffir lime, curry, and bael leaves.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 6.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 73.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 483.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 81 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of August 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17876 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    GIPSA intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a 3-year extension of a currently approved information collection for the “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) and under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA).” This approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    DATES:

    GIPSA will consider comments received by October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Irene Omade, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-S, Washington, DC 20250-3604.

    Instructions: All comments should be identified as “FGIS Information Collection,” and should reference the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. The information collection package and other documents relating to this action will be available for public inspection in Room 2530-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604 during regular business hours. All comments will be available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). Please call the Management and Budget Services Staff of GIPSA at (202) 720-8479 to arrange to inspect comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Omade, 202-720-8479.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Congress enacted the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) (7 U.S.C. 71-87k) and the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) to facilitate the marketing of grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related commodities. These statutes provide for the establishment of standards and terms that accurately and consistently measure the quality of grain and related products, provide for uniform official inspection and weighing, provide regulatory and service responsibilities, and furnish the framework for commodity quality improvement incentives to both domestic and foreign buyers. GIPSA's Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) establishes policies, guidelines, and regulations to carry out the objectives of the USGSA and the AMA. Regulations appear at 7 CFR 800, 801, and 802 for the USGSA and 7 CFR 868 for the AMA.

    The USGSA, with few exceptions, requires official inspection of export grain sold by grade. Official services are provided, upon request, for grain in domestic commerce. The AMA authorizes similar inspection and weighing services, upon request, for rice, pulses, flour, corn meal, and certain other agricultural products. Conversely, the regulations promulgated under the USGSA and the AMA require specific information collection and recordkeeping necessary to carry out requests for official services. Applicants for official services must specify the kind and level of service, the identification of the product, the location, the amount, and other pertinent information in order that official personnel can efficiently respond to their needs.

    Official services under the USGSA are provided through FGIS field offices and delegated and/or designated State and private agencies. Delegated agencies are State agencies delegated authority under the USGSA to provide official inspection service, Class X or Class Y weighing services, or both, at one or more export port locations in the State. Designated agencies are State or local governmental agencies or persons designated under the USGSA to provide official inspection services, Class X or Class Y weighing services, or both, at locations other than export port locations. State and private agencies, as a requirement for delegation and/or designation, must comply with all regulations, procedures, and instructions in accordance with provisions established under the USGSA. FGIS field offices oversee the performance of these agencies and provide technical guidance as needed.

    Official services under the AMA are performed, upon request, on a fee basis for domestic and export shipments either by FGIS employees, individual contractors, or cooperators. Contractors are persons who enter into a contract with FGIS to perform specified sampling and inspection services. Cooperators are agencies or departments of the Federal Government which have an interagency agreement, State agencies, or other entities which have a reimbursable agreement with FGIS.

    Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements (United States Grain Standards Act and Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946).

    OMB Number: 0580-0013.

    Expiration Date of Approval: January 31, 2018.

    Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The USGSA and the AMA authorize USDA to inspect, certify and identify the class, quality, quantity and condition of agricultural products shipped or received in interstate and foreign commerce.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .13 hours per response.

    Respondents: Grain producers, buyers, and sellers, elevator operators, grain merchandisers, and official grain inspection agencies.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,610.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 144.30.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 158,144 hours.

    As required by the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)(i)), GIPSA specifically requests comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17887 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.

    Title: Procedures for Acceptance or Rejection of a Rated Order.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0092.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 21,380.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 734,650.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 15 minutes.

    Needs and Uses: This collection involves the exchange of rated order information between customers and suppliers. Recordkeeping is necessary for administration and enforcement of delegated authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.) and the Selective Service Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 468). Any person (supplier) who receives a priority rated order under DPAS regulation (15 CFR 700) must notify the customer of acceptance or rejection of that order within a specified period of time.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected]

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17972 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; the Reporting Process for Complaint of Employment Discrimination Used by Permanent Employees and Applicants for Employment at the Department of Commerce AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Office of Civil Rights, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 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.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Kathryn Anderson, 202-482-3680, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations at 29 CFR 1614.106 require that a Federal employee or applicant for Federal employment alleging discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, or reprisal for protected activity must submit a signed statement that is sufficiently precise to identify the actions or practices that form the basis of the complaint. Although complainants are not required to use the proposed form to file their complaints, the Office of Civil Rights strongly encourages its use to ensure efficient case processing and trend analyses of complaint activity.

    II. Method of Collection

    A paper form, signed by the complainant or his or her designated representative, must be submitted by mail or delivery service, email, in person, or by facsimile transmission.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0690-0015.

    Form Number(s): CD-498, CD-498A.

    Type of Review: Regular. Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Affected Public: Households and Individuals.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 700.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 350.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (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.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17979 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-BP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; the Reporting Process for Complaint of Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Against the Department of Commerce AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 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.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Kathryn Anderson, 202-482-3680, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Pursuant to Executive Order 11478 and Department of Commerce Administrative Order (DAO) 215-11, an employee or applicant for employment with the Department of Commerce who alleges that he or she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment based on sexual orientation by the Department of Commerce or one of its sub-agencies, must submit a signed statement that is sufficiently precise to identify the actions or practices that form the basis of the complaint.

    The complainant is also required to provide an address and telephone number where the complainant or his or her representative may be contacted. Through use of the standardized form (CD-545), the Office of Civil Rights proposes to collect the information required by the Executive Order and DAO in a uniform manner that will increase the efficiency of complaint processing and trend analyses of complaint activity.

    II. Method of Collection

    A paper form, signed by the complainant or his/her designated representative, must be submitted by mail or delivery service, in person, or by facsimile transmission.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0690-0024.

    Form Number: CD-545.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (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.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17974 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-BP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    Title: Competitive Enhancement Needs Assessment Survey Program.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0083.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,400.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,400.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Needs and Uses: The information collected from this surveys will be used to assist small- and medium-sized firms in defense transition and in gaining access to advanced technologies and manufacturing processes available from Federal Laboratories. The goal is to improve regions of the country adversely affected by cutbacks in defense spending and military base closures.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected]

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17975 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Report From Foreign-Trade Zones AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 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.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher Kemp, Office of Foreign-Trade Zones, (202) 482-0862, or email, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Foreign-Trade Zone Annual Report is the vehicle by which Foreign-Trade Zone grantees report annually to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board, pursuant to the requirements of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u). The annual reports submitted by grantees are the only complete source of compiled information on FTZs. The data and information contained in the reports relates to international trade activity in FTZs. The reports are used by the Congress and the Department to determine the economic effect of the FTZ program. The reports are also used by the FTZ Board and other trade policy officials to determine whether zone activity is consistent with U.S. international trade policy, and whether it is in the public interest. The public uses the information regarding activities carried out in FTZs to evaluate their effect on industry sectors. The information contained in annual reports also helps zone grantees in their marketing efforts. This is a request for a renewal of a currently approved information collection.

    II. Method of Collection

    The Foreign-Trade Zone Annual Report is collected from zone grantees in a web-based, electronic format.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0109.

    Form Number(s): ITA 359P.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: State, local, tribal governments, or not-for-profit institutions that have been granted foreign-trade zone authority.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 263.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 76 hours (depending on size and structure of foreign-trade zone).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,784.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (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.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17978 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-871, A-475-835] Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India and Italy: Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing antidumping duty orders on finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Baker at (202) 482-2924 (India), Edythe Artman at (202) 482-3931 or Moses Song at (202) 482-5041 (Italy), AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on June 29, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy.1 On August 14, 2017, the ITC notified the Department of its final affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy.2 On August 17, 2017, the ITC published its final determination in the Federal Register.3

    1See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 29483 (June 29, 2017) (India Final Determination); see also Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 29481 (June 29, 2017) (Italy Final Determination).

    2See section 735(d) of the Act (requiring notification); see also Letter from the ITC regarding “Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India, and Antidumping Investigation of Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Italy,” dated August 14, 2017 (ITC Letter). See also Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India and Italy: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-563 and 731-TA-1331-1332 (Final), USITC Publication 4717 (August 2017) (ITC Report).

    3See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India and Italy; Determinations, 82 FR 39133 (August 17, 2017).

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by these orders is finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy. For a complete description of the scope of these orders, see Appendix of this notice.

    Antidumping Duty Orders

    As stated above, on August 14, 2017, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy.4 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from India and Italy, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    4See ITC Letter and ITC Report.

    As a result of the ITC's final affirmative determination, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 8, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,5 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication in the Federal Register of the ITC's injury determination, as further described below.

    5See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 82 FR 9719 (February 8, 2017) (Italy Preliminary Determination); Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Italy: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 82 FR 9711 (February 8, 2017) (India Preliminary Determination).

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated below. Accordingly, applicable August 17, 2017, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below.6 The relevant “all-others” rates apply to all producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

    6See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy, the Department extended the four-month period to six months in each case.7 In the underlying investigations, the Department published the preliminary determinations on February 8, 2017. Therefore, the extended period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determinations, ended on August 6, 2017. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that the collection of final cash deposits will begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    7See India Preliminary Determination, 82 FR at 9721 and Italy Preliminary Determination, 82 FR at 9713.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after August 6, 2017, until and through August 16, 2017, the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register.

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The estimated weighted-average dumping margins for each antidumping order are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit
  • rate
  • (adjusted
  • for subsidy
  • offsets)
  • (percent)
  • India Norma (India) Limited 8 11.32 8.56.9 R. N. Gupta & Co., Ltd 12.58 9.27.10 All-Others 11.95 8.91.11 Italy Metalfar Prodotti Industriali S.p.A 204.53 Not Applicable. Officine Ambrogio Melesi & C. S.r.l 12 204.53 Not Applicable. All-Others 79.17 Not Applicable.
    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    8 The Department has determined that Norma (India) Limited and USK Exports Private Limited and Uma Shanker Khandelwal & Co. and Bansidhar Chiranjilal are a single entity. See Memorandum, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India: Preliminary Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum for Norma (India) Limited,” dated January 26, 2017, at 8-9, unchanged in India Final Determination.

    9See India Final Determination, 82 FR at 29484.

    10Id.

    11Id.

    12 The Department has determined that Officine Ambrogio Melesi & C. S.r.l and ASFO S.p.A. are a single entity. See Memorandum, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Italy: Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum for Officine Ambrogio Melesi & C. S.r.l.,” dated January 26, 2017, at 7, unchanged in Italy Final Determination.

    These orders are published in accordance with section and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Orders

    The scope of these orders covers finished carbon steel flanges. Finished carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished carbon steel flanges (also known as carbon steel flange forgings) in that they have undergone further processing after forging, including, but not limited to, beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, face machining, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces, drilling bolt holes, and/or de-burring or shot blasting. Any one of these post-forging processes suffices to render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of these orders. However, mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange forging (without any other further processing after forging) does not render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order.

    While these finished carbon steel flanges are generally manufactured to specification ASME B16.5 or ASME B16.47 series A or series B, the scope is not limited to flanges produced under those specifications. All types of finished carbon steel flanges are included in the scope regardless of pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in pounds of pressure, e.g., 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1,500, 2,500, etc.), type of face (e.g., flat face, full face, raised face, etc.), configuration (e.g., weld neck, slip on, socket weld, lap joint, threaded, etc.), wall thickness (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in inches), normalization, or whether or not heat treated. These carbon steel flanges either meet or exceed the requirements of the ASTM A105, ASTM A694, ASTM A181, ASTM A350 and ASTM A707 standards (or comparable foreign specifications). The scope includes any flanges produced to the above-referenced ASTM standards as currently stated or as may be amended. The term “carbon steel” under this scope is steel in which:

    (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements:

    (b) The carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

    (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 0.87 percent of aluminum;

    (ii) 0.0105 percent of boron;

    (iii) 10.10 percent of chromium;

    (iv) 1.55 percent of columbium;

    (v) 3.10 percent of copper;

    (vi) 0.38 percent of lead;

    (vii) 3.04 percent of manganese;

    (viii) 2.05 percent of molybdenum;

    (ix) 20.15 percent of nickel;

    (x) 1.55 percent of niobium;

    (xi) 0.20 percent of nitrogen;

    (xii) 0.21 percent of phosphorus;

    (xiii) 3.10 percent of silicon;

    (xiv) 0.21 percent of sulfur;

    (xv) 1.05 percent of titanium;

    (xvi) 4.06 percent of tungsten;

    (xvii) 0.53 percent of vanadium; or

    (xviii) 0.015 percent of zirconium.

    Finished carbon steel flanges are currently classified under subheadings 7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-18056 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-872] Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty order on finished carbon steel flanges from India.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698 or Erin Kearney at (202) 482-0167, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on June 29, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of finished carbon steel flanges from India.1 On August 14, 2017, the ITC notified the Department of its final affirmative determination, pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of subsidized imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India.2 On August 17, 2017, the ITC published its final determination in the Federal Register. 3

    1See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 82 FR 29479 (June 29, 2017) (Final Determination).

    2See ITC Letter dated August 14, 2017 (ITC Letter); see also Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India and Italy, Investigation No. 701-TA-563 and 731-TA-1331-1332 (Final) USITC Publication 4714 (August 2017) (ITC Report).

    3See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India and Italy; Determinations, 82 FR 39133 (August 17, 2017).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is finished carbon steel flanges from India. For a complete description of the scope of this order, see Appendix of this notice.

    Countervailing Duty Order

    As stated above, on August 14, 2017, in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India.4 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing this countervailing duty order. Because the ITC determined that imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from India, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of countervailing duties.

    4See ITC Letter and ITC Report.

    As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India. Countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 29, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination, 5 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication in the Federal Register of the ITC's final injury determination.

    5See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 81 FR 85928 (November 29, 2016) (Preliminary Determination).

    Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigation, the Department published the Preliminary Determination on November 29, 2016. Therefore, the four-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination ended on March 28, 2017. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that the collection of final cash deposits will begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act and our practice, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to duties, unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India made on or after March 29, 2017. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation on all entries of subject merchandise from India, applicable the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register, and to assess, upon further instruction by the Department pursuant to 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise. We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits for each entry of subject merchandise equal to the amounts as indicated below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. The all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

    Exporter/manufacturer Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Norma (India) Limited 6 5.66 R.N. Gupta & Co., Ltd 9.11 All Others 7.39
    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the countervaling duty order with respect to finished carbon steel flanges from India pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    6 As discussed in the Final Determination, the Department found the following companies to be cross-owned with Norma (India) Limited: Uma Shanker Khandelwal & Co., USK Exports Private Limited, and Bansidhar Chiranjilal.

    This order is published in accordance with section and 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order covers finished carbon steel flanges. Finished carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished carbon steel flanges (also known as carbon steel flange forgings) in that they have undergone further processing after forging, including, but not limited to, beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, face machining, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces, drilling bolt holes, and/or de-burring or shot blasting. Any one of these post-forging processes suffices to render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order. However, mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange forging (without any other further processing after forging) does not render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order.

    While these finished carbon steel flanges are generally manufactured to specification ASME B16.5 or ASME B16.47 series A or series B, the scope is not limited to flanges produced under those specifications. All types of finished carbon steel flanges are included in the scope regardless of pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in pounds of pressure, e.g., 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1500, 2500, etc.), type of face (e.g., flat face, full face, raised face, etc.), configuration (e.g., weld neck, slip on, socket weld, lap joint, threaded, etc.), wall thickness (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in inches), normalization, or whether or not heat treated. These carbon steel flanges either meet or exceed the requirements of the ASTM A105, ASTM A694, ASTM A181, ASTM A350 and ASTM A707 standards (or comparable foreign specifications). The scope includes any flanges produced to the above-referenced ASTM standards as currently stated or as may be amended. The term “carbon steel” under this scope is steel in which:

    (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements:

    (b) The carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

    (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 0.87 percent of aluminum;

    (ii) 0.0105 percent of boron;

    (iii) 10.10 percent of chromium;

    (iv) 1.55 percent of columbium;

    (v) 3.10 percent of copper;

    (vi) 0.38 percent of lead;

    (vii) 3.04 percent of manganese;

    (viii) 2.05 percent of molybdenum;

    (ix) 20.15 percent of nickel;

    (x) 1.55 percent of niobium;

    (xi) 0.20 percent of nitrogen;

    (xii) 0.21 percent of phosphorus;

    (xiii) 3.10 percent of silicon;

    (xiv) 0.21 percent of sulfur;

    (xv) 1.05 percent of titanium;

    (xvi) 4.06 percent of tungsten;

    (xvii) 0.53 percent of vanadium; or

    (xviii) 0.015 percent of zirconium.

    Finished carbon steel flanges are currently classified under subheadings 7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-18057 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Participant Application, Participant Exit Questionnaire, Alumni Success Story Report AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 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.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, SABIT, Attn: Tracey Rollins, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., 20230, (202) 482-0073, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Special American Business Internship Training (SABIT) Program of the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA), is a key element in the U.S. Government's efforts to support the economic transition of Eurasia (the former Soviet Union) and to support economic growth in other regions of the world, including Pakistan, South Asia, and the Middle East, et al. SABIT develops and implements two- to three-week training programs for groups of up to 20 business and government professionals from Eurasia and other regions. These professionals meet with U.S. government agencies, non-governmental organizations and private sector companies in order to learn about various business practices and principles. This unique private sector-U.S. Government partnership was created in order to tap into the U.S. private sector's expertise and to assist developing regions in their transition to market-based economies while simultaneously boosting trade between the United States and other countries. Participant applications are needed to enable SABIT to find the most qualified participants for the training programs. Participant exit questionnaires provide insight as to what the participants have learned, and they are used to improve the content and administration of future programs. Alumni success story reports track the success of the program as regards to business ties between the U.S. and the countries SABIT covers.

    The closing date for participant applications is based upon the starting date of the program and is published with the application, on the program's English-language Web site at www.trade.gov/sabit, and also on the Russian-language Web site at www.sabitprogram.org, if applicable. Pursuant to section 632(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, funding for the programs will be provided by the Agency for International Development (AID).

    The SABIT Program has revised the collection instruments. The instruments are very similar to those used by SABIT in past years. However, some wording has been changed to reflect the changing needs of SABIT over time. The changes are relatively minor and most of them are rephrasing of wording. Instructions for filling out the form, methods of submission, and the order of questions have been revised on the Participant Application. These revisions are not expected to increase the response time to complete the instruments.

    II. Method of Collection

    Participant applications are available for download from the SABIT English and Russian language Web sites at www.trade.gov/sabit and www.sabitprogram.org. Applications may be sent to program candidates via email or fax upon request. Applications are collected via email. Participant exit questionnaires are given to program participants at the completion of programs in by email and are collected by email, although in rare situations, a paper questionnaire may be completed and submitted. Alumni success story reports are used internally by SABIT staff to record success information, but at times they may be sent to alumni to fill out and submit via email or fax.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0225.

    Form Number(s): ITA-4143P-3.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (revision of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,500.

    Estimated Time per Response: Participant application, 3 hours; participant exit questionnaire, 1 hour; alumni success story report, 1 hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (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.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17976 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE467 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Testing and Training Activities Conducted in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application for Letter of Authorization; request for comments and information.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has received a request from the United States Air Force (USAF), Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) 96th Test Wing (AFMC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting testing and training activities in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) in the Gulf of Mexico over the course of five years, from February 4, 2018 through February 3, 2023. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt of Eglin AFB's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on Eglin AFB's application and request.

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than September 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225 and electronic comments should be sent [email protected]

    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/military.htm without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability

    An electronic copy of Eglin AFB's application may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. In case of problems accessing the document, please call the contact listed above.

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings for marine mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

    The NDAA of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment). Eglin AFB has identified these testing and training activities as military readiness activities.

    On April 23, 2012, NMFS promulgated a rulemaking and issued a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School (NEODS) training operations at Eglin AFB. This rule expired on April 24, 2017 (77 FR 16718, March 22, 2012). On March 5, 2014, NMFS promulgated rulemaking and issued a LOA for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) precision strike weapons (PSW) and air-to-surface (AS) gunnery activities in the EGTTR, which is valid through March 4, 2019 (79 FR 13568, March 11, 2014). In addition to these rules and LOAs, NMFS has issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHA) for take of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Maritime Strike Operations (78 FR 52135, August 22, 2013; valid August 19, 2013 through August 18, 2014) and Maritime Weapons Systems Evaluations Program (WSEP) annually in 2015 (81 FR 7307) and 2016 (82 FR 10747). Eglin AFB complied with all conditions of the LOAs and IHAs issued, including submission of final reports. Based on these reports, NMFS has determined that impacts to marine mammals were not beyond those anticipated. On November 10, 2015, Eglin Natural Resources submitted an LOA request to consolidate all EGTTR activities into one authorization for five years. NMFS Office of Protected Resources planned to issue the EGTTR LOA by January 2017. However, it became apparent that the LOA would not be issued in time to cover February 2017 Maritime WSEP missions based on concerns associated with the acoustic model methodology and mission-day scenario versus per-detonation approach. Eglin Natural Resources requested and received a separate IHA (82 FR 10747, February 15, 2017) valid from February 4, 2017 through February 3, 2018 for those WSEP missions that incorporated such methodology revisions, which has also served as interim coverage for a small number of other 2017 missions while the EGTTR LOA was being revised.

    Eglin AFB's current rulemaking/LOA application would also supersede the existing PSW and AS gunnery rule that is in effect until March 4, 2019, and would include all of Eglin AFB's testing and training activities, including WSEP activities, into one new rule with the exception of NEODS training activities. Eglin AFB has never conducted any NEODS training activities and is not including these activities as part of the new rulemaking.

    Summary of Request

    On May 3, 2017, NMFS received an adequate and complete application from Eglin AFB requesting authorization for the take of marine mammals incidental to testing and training activities in the EGTTR (defined as the area and airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point three nautical miles (nmi) off the coast of Florida) for a period of five years. These testing and training activities have the potential to result in take of marine mammals in the waters of the EGTTR. Therefore, Eglin AFB requests authorization to take two species of marine mammals that may occur in this area, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis).

    Specified Activities

    Eglin AFB proposes the following actions in the EGTTR: (1) 86th Fighter Weapons Squadron (FWS) Maritime WSEP test missions that involve the use of multiple types of live and inert munitions (bombs and missiles) detonated above, at, or slightly below the water surface; (2) Advanced Systems Employment Project actions that involve deployment of a variety of pods, air-to-air missiles, bombs, and other munitions (all inert ordnances in relation to EGTTR); (3) AFSOC training, including air-to-surface gunnery missions involving firing live gunnery rounds at targets on the water surface in EGTTR, small diameter bomb (SDB) and Griffin/Hellfire missile training involving the use of live missiles and SDBs in the EGTTR against small towed boats, and CV-22 training involving the firing of 0.50 caliber (cal.)/7.62 mm ammunition at flares floating on the EGTTR water surface; (4) 413th Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) Precision Strike Program (PSP) activities involving firing munitions at flare targets on the EGTTR water surface and Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM) testing involving captive-carry, store separation, and weapon employment tests; (5) 780th Test Squadron (TS) activities involving PSW test missions (launch of munitions against targets in the EGTTR) and Longbow Littoral Testing (data collection on tracking and impact ability of the Longbow missile on small boats); (6) 96th Test Wing Inert Missions (developmental testing and evaluation for wide variety of air-delivered weapons and other systems using inert bombs); and (7) 96 Operations Group (OG) missions, which involve the support of air-to-surface missions for several user groups within EGTTR.

    During these activities, ordnances may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft, including bombers and fighter aircraft. The actions include air-to-ground missiles (AGM); air intercept missiles (AIM); bomb dummy units (BDU); guided bomb units (GBU); projectile gun units (PGU); cluster bomb units (CBU); wind-corrected munitions dispensers (WCMD); (SDB) and laser small diameter bombs (LSDB); high explosive incendiary units (HEI); joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and laser joint direct attack munitions (LJDAM); research department explosives (RDX); joint air-to-surface stand-off missiles (JASSM); high altitude anti-submarine warfare weapons (inert); high-speed maneuverable surface targets; and gunnery rounds. Net explosive weight (NEW) of the live munitions ranges from 0.1 to 945 pounds (lb).

    Eglin AFB testing and training activities involving live munitions are summarized in Table 1.

    Table 1—Live Munitions Planned for Testing and Training Activities in the EGTTR Mission Groups Mission category day Munition NEW
  • (lb)
  • Detonation type Munitions/day Mission
  • days/yr
  • Munitions/yr
    86 FWS Maritime WSEP A GBU-10/-24/-31 945 Subsurface * 1 2 2 GBU-49 300 Surface 2 4 AGM-158 (JASSM) 240 Surface 2 4 GBU-12/-54 (LJDAM/-38/-32 (JDAM) 192 Subsurface * 5 10 B AGM-65 (Maverick) 86 Surface 2 4 8 GBU-39 (SDB) 37 Surface 1 4 AGM-114 (Hellfire) 20 Subsurface * 5 20 C AGM-176 (Griffin) 13 Surface 5 2 10 2.75 rocket 12 Surface 50 100 AIM-9X 7.9 Surface 1 2 PGU-12 HEI 30 mm 0.1 Surface 500 1,000 AFSOC AS gunnery D 105 mm HE (FU) 4.7 Surface 30 25 750 40 mm HE 0.87 Surface 64 1,600 30 mm HE 0.1 Surface 500 12,500 25 mm HE 0.067 Surface 560 14,000 E 105 mm HE (TR) 0.35 Surface 30 45 1,350 40 mm HE 0.87 Surface 64 2,880 30 mm HE 0.1 Surface 500 22,500 25 mm HE 0.067 Surface 560 25,200 413 FLTS PSP gunnery F 30 mm HE 0.1 Surface 33 3 99 G 105 mm FU 4.7 Surface 15 4 60 H 105 mm TR 0.35 Surface 15 4 60 413 FLTS SOPGM I AGM-176 (Griffin) 4.58 Surface 5 2 10 J AGM-114 (Hellfire) 20 Surface 5 2 10 K GBU-39 (SDB I) 36 Surface 3 2 6 L GBU-39 (LSDB) 36 Surface 5 2 10 780 TS PSW M AGM-158 (JASSM) 240 Surface 2 1 2 N GBU-39 (SDB I) 37 Surface 2 1 2 GBU-39 (SDB I) Double shot * 74 Surface 2 2 O GBU-53 (SDB II) 22.84 Surface 2 1 2 780 TS other tests P Joint air-ground missile 27.41 Surface 1 1 1 Q LSDB and SDB II (live fuse only) 0.4 Surface 2 4 8 96 OG Future Missions R GBU-10/-24 945 Subsurface * 1 1 1 AGM-158 (JASSM) 240 Surface 1 1 GBU-12 or -54 192 Subsurface * 1 1 S AGM-65 (Maverick) 86 Surface 1 2 2 GBU-39 (SDB I or LSDB) 37 Subsurface * 2 4 AGM-114 (Hellfire) 29 Subsurface * 10 20 T 105 mm HE (FU) 4.7 Surface 13 10 130 40 mm HE 0.9 Surface 60 60 Live fuse 0.4 Surface 20 200 30 mm HE 0.1 Surface 500 5,000 FU = Full Up; TR = Training Round (lessened NEW). * Subsurface detonations occur at 10 feet water depth.
    Information Solicited

    Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning Eglin AFB's request (see ADDRESSES). Comments should be supported by data or literature citations as appropriate. We will consider all relevant information, suggestions, and comments related to the request during the development of proposed regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by Eglin AFB, if appropriate.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Cathryn E. Tortorici, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17938 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF624 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting (conference call).

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel (CPSAS) will hold a meeting via conference call that is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The conference call will be held Wednesday, September 6, 2017, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. or until business for the day has been completed.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via conference call. To attend the conference call, dial this toll free number: (866) 692-4538; enter participant code 2366028. A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below).

    Council Address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kerry Griffin, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2409.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss items on the Pacific Council's September 2017 meeting agenda. Major topics include, but are not limited to, (1) a draft Terms of Reference for the 2018 review of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Acoustic-Trawl Survey Methodology Review Terms of Reference for coastal pelagic species stocks; and (2) the Ecosystem Workgroup Report on Fishery Ecosystem Plan Initiatives: Scoping and Selection. Both topics are to be considered at the September Council meeting, and the CPSAS may develop supplemental reports on these topics. The CPSAS may also address one or more of the Pacific Council's scheduled Administrative Matters including future meeting planning. Public comment may be taken at the discretion of the CPSAS Co-Chairs.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17943 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF620 Marine Mammals; File No. 21486 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Worldwide Americas, Inc., on behalf of BBC Natural History Unit, 28 Whiteladies Rd, Bristol, UK, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial or educational photography on Weddell Seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) in Antarctica.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    These documents are available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Lierheimer or Sara Young, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The applicant proposes to film Weddell seals at various locations in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, between October and December 2017. Up to 16 Weddell seals (8 mother pup-pairs from birth through weaning) could be targeted and disturbed during filming activities on the sea ice, underwater (scuba divers), and by air (drone). Up to 80 Weddell seals (non-targeted animals in the colony) could be incidentally disturbed during the filming activities. Footage would be used for the BBC television series “Seven Worlds,” to showcase Antarctica and will include a segment featuring Weddell seals. The permit would be valid through December 2017.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17932 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF623 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team (BS FEP) will meet September 5-7, 2017.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 5 through Thursday, September 7, 2017. The meeting will be held on September 5, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.; September 6, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and September 7, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 4600 Sand Point Way, Building 4, Room 2039, Seattle, WA 98115. It will also be held via teleconference: (907) 271-2896. Listening only for non-team members.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda Tuesday, September 5-Thursday, September 7

    The BS FEP agenda will consist of continuing to develop the Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan, including (a) review sections of the core FEP document, (b) review progress on action modules, and (c) discuss next steps. A full agenda is available at www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/BSFEP/BSFEPTagenda917.pdf and background information can be found at www.npfmc.org/bsfep.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17944 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Management Plan for South Slough, Oregon National Estuarine Research Reserve AGENCY:

    Stewardship Division, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Approval for the South Slough, Oregon National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision.

    SUMMARY:

    The notice is hereby given that the Stewardship Division, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce approves the revised Management Plan for South Slough, Oregon National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan. In accordance, the South Slough Reserve revised its Management Plan, which will replace the plan previously approved in 2006.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is a federal-state partnership administered by NOAA. The system protects more than 1.3 million acres of estuarine habitat for long-term research, monitoring, education, and stewardship throughout the coastal United States. Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, each Reserve is managed by a lead state agency or university, with input from local partners. NOAA provides funding and national programmatic guidance.

    The revised Management Plan outlines the administrative structure; the Reserve's science and education programs; public uses; resource protection plan; and the plans for future land acquisition and facility development to support Reserve operations.

    The South Slough Reserve takes an integrated approach to management, linking research, education, coastal training, public involvement, and stewardship functions. The Reserve has outlined how it will manage administration and its core program providing detailed actions that will enable it to accomplish specific goals and objectives. Since the last Management Plan, the Reserve has built out its core programs and monitoring infrastructure; conducted an educational market analysis and needs assessment to better meet teacher needs; developed a Reserve Disaster Response Plan; and improved public access to the Reserve through construction of a new paddle launch, enhancements to the visitor center, and new water and land trails.

    On April 14, 2017, NOAA issued a notice of a thirty (30) day public comment period for the South Slough Reserve revised plan (82 FR 17974). Responses to the public comments received, and an explanation of how comments were incorporated into the final revised plan, are available in Appendix H of the revised plan.

    The revised Management Plan will serve as the guiding document for the 4,771-acre South Slough Reserve. View the South Slough, Oregon Reserve Management Plan at http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/SS/Documents/SouthSloughReserve2017-2022ManagementPlan.pdf. The impacts of the revised Management Plan have not changed and the initial Environmental Impact Statement prepared at the time of designation is still valid. NOAA has made the determination that the revision of the Management Plan will not have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore qualifies for a categorical exclusion under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A. An environmental assessment will not be prepared.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bree Turner at (206) 526-4641 or Erica Seiden at (301) 563-1172 of NOAA's National Ocean Service, Stewardship Division, Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Paul M. Scholz, Deputy Director, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.420 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration
    [FR Doc. 2017-17946 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket DARS-2017-0009; OMB Control Number 0704-0245] Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Transportation AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement under Control Number 0704-0245 for use through November 30, 2017. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for the requirements now included under Control Number 0704-0245 for use for three additional years.

    DATES:

    DoD will consider all comments received by October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0245, using any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB Control Number 0704-0245 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Tom Ruckdaschel, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Instructions: Search for “Docket Number: DARS-2017-0009.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Tom Ruckdaschel, 571-372-6088.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 247, Transportation, and related clauses at DFARS 252.247; OMB Control Number 0704-0245.

    Needs and Uses: DoD contracting officers use this information to verify that prospective contractors have adequate insurance prior to award of stevedoring contracts; to provide appropriate price adjustments to stevedoring contracts; to assist the Maritime Administration in monitoring compliance with requirements for use of U.S.-flag vessels in accordance with the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 (10 U.S.C. 2631); and to provide appropriate and timely shipping documentation and instructions to contractors.

    Type of Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Number of Respondents: 33,372.

    Responses per Respondent: 12.57, approximately.

    Annual Responses: 419,537.

    Average Hours per Response: .4, approximately.

    Annual Burden Hours: 168,496.

    Summary of Information Collection

    The clause at DFARS 252.247-7000, Hardship Conditions, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270-4(a) for use in all solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of stevedoring services. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer of unusual conditions associated with loading or unloading a particular cargo, for potential adjustment of contract labor rates; and to submit any associated request for price adjustment to the contracting officer within 10 working days of the vessel sailing time.

    The clause at DFARS 252.247-7001, Price Adjustment, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270-4(b) for use in solicitations and contracts when using sealed bidding to acquire stevedoring services. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the clause require the contractor to notify the contracting officer of certain changes in the wage rates or benefits that apply to its direct labor employees. Paragraph (g) of the clause requires the contractor to include with its final invoice a statement that the contractor has experienced no decreases in rates of pay for labor or has notified the contracting officer of all such decreases.

    The clause at DFARS 252.247-7002, Revision of Prices, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270-4(c) for use in solicitations and contracts when using negotiation to acquire stevedoring services. Paragraph (c) of the clause provides that, at any time, either the contracting officer or the contractor may deliver to the other a written demand that the parties negotiate to revise the prices under the contract. Paragraph (d) of the clause requires that, if either party makes such a demand, the contractor must submit relevant data upon which to base negotiations.

    The clause at DFARS 252.247-7007, Liability and Insurance, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270-4(g) for use in all solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of stevedoring services. Paragraph (f) of the clause requires the contractor to furnish the contracting officer with satisfactory evidence of insurance.

    The provision at DFARS 252.247-7022, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(a) for use in all solicitations except those for direct purchase of ocean transportation services or those with an anticipated value at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. Paragraph (b) of the provision requires the offeror to represent whether or not it anticipates that supplies will be transported by sea in the performance of any contract or subcontract resulting from the solicitation.

    The clause at DFARS 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(b) for use in all solicitations and contracts except those for direct purchase of ocean transportation services. Paragraph (d) of the clause requires the contractor to submit any requests for use of other than U.S.-flag vessels in writing to the contracting officer. Paragraph (e) of the clause requires the contractor to submit one copy of the rated on board vessel operating carrier's ocean bill of landing. Paragraph (f) of the clause, if the contract exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, requires the contractor to represent, with its final invoice, that: (1) No ocean transportation was used in the performance of the contract; (2) only U.S.-flag vessels were used for all ocean shipments under the contract; (3) the contractor had the written consent of the contracting officer for all non-U.S.-flag ocean transportation; or (4) shipments were made on non-U.S.-flag vessels without the written consent of the contracting officer. Contractors must flow down these requirements to noncommercial subcontracts and certain types of commercial subcontracts. Subcontracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (f) stated above.

    The clause at DFARS 252.247-7024, Notification of Transportation of Supplies by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(c) for use in all contracts, for which the offeror represented, by completion of the provision at DFARS 252.247-7022, that it did not anticipate transporting any supplies by sea in performance of the contract. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer if the contractor learns, after award of the contract, that supplies will be transported by sea.

    The clause at DFARS 252.247-7026, Evaluation Preference for Use of Domestic Shipyards—Applicable to Acquisition of Carriage by Vessel for DoD Cargo in the Coastwise or Noncontiguous Trade, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(e) in solicitations that require a covered vessel for carriage of cargo for DoD. Paragraph (c) of the clause requires the offeror to provide information with its offer, addressing all covered vessels for which overhaul, repair, and maintenance work has been performed during the period covering the current calendar year, up to the date of proposal submission, and the preceding four calendar years.

    The clause at DFARS 252.247.7028, Application for U.S. Government Shipping Documentation/Instructions, is prescribed at DFARS 247.207(2) for inclusion in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, when shipping under Bills of Lading and Domestic Route Order under FOB origin contract, Export Traffic Release regardless of FOB terms, or foreign military sales shipments. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires contractors to complete DD Form 1659, Application for U.S. Government Shipping Documentation/Instructions to request shipping instructions, unless an automated system is available (paragraph (b) of the clause).

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17948 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket DARS-2017-0008; OMB Control Number 0704-0497] Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Part 15 Negotiation AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement for use through November 30, 2017. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration date.

    DATES:

    DoD will consider all comments received by October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0497, using any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB Control Number 0704-0245 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Instructions: Search for “Docket Number: DARS-2017-0008.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571-372-6099.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 15 Negotiation; OMB Control Number 0704-0497.

    Needs and Uses: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.403-5 provides contractors with guidance for the submittal of forward pricing rate proposals, and includes a checklist for contractors to use in preparing their proposals. The checklist is submitted to DoD with the forward pricing rate proposal.

    Type of Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 277

    Responses per Respondent: 1

    Annual Responses: 277

    Average Burden per Response: 4 hours

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,108

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Summary of Information Collection

    The purpose of this information collection is to improve the efficiency of the negotiations process by ensuring the submission of thorough, accurate, and complete forward pricing rate proposals. If the contracting officer determines that a forward pricing rate proposal should be obtained pursuant to FAR 42.1701, then contractors following the commercial contract cost principles in FAR subpart 31.2 will be required to submit a forward pricing rate proposal that complies with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and DFARS 215.403-5 and 215.407-5-70. The forward pricing rate proposal adequacy checklist at Table 215.403-5(b)(3) is used by the contracting officer and the contractor to ensure the proposal is complete. The completed forward pricing rate proposal adequacy checklist will be submitted to DoD with the forward pricing rate proposal.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17956 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, September 12, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer McCloskey, Federal Coordinator, EMAB (EM-4.3), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone (301) 903-7427; fax (202) 586-0293 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of EMAB is to provide the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM) with advice and recommendations on corporate issues confronting the EM program. EMAB contributes to the effective operation of the program by providing individual citizens and representatives of interested groups an opportunity to present their views on issues facing EM and by helping to secure consensus recommendations on those issues.

    Tentative Agenda Topics • EM Program Update • Lessons Learned from EM Closed Sites/Rocky Flats Discussion • Hanford Closure Discussion • Public Comment Period • Subcommittee Reports

    Public Participation: EMAB welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jennifer McCloskey at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number or email address listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda should contact Jennifer McCloskey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Jennifer McCloskey at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://energy.gov/em/services/communication-engagement/environmental-management-advisory-board-emab.

    Issued at Washington, DC, August 18, 2017. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17902 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1832-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report (ER16-1832-000, 001, 002 and 003) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170817-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-210-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report (ER17-210-002 and 004) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170817-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2324-000.

    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.

    Description: Initial rate filing: LCC Services and Telemetering Services Agreements—RMLD to be effective 8/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2325-000.

    Applicants: Colonial Eagle Solar, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 819 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5030.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2326-000.

    Applicants: Conetoe II Solar, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 819 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5031.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2327-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 205 filing re: cost recovery for regulated transmission facilities to be effective 10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5034.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2328-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 819 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2329-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 819 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2330-000.

    Applicants: Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 819 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5038.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2331-000.

    Applicants: North Allegheny Wind, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 819 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5042.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2332-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OATT Schedule RE: New Black Start Unit Revenue Requirements Process to be effective 11/16/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5044.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2333-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Beckjord Storage, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 819 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    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 18, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17949 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR17-22-000] Sendero Carlsbad NGL, LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver

    Take notice that on August 17, 2017, pursuant to Rule 202 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.202 (2017), Sendero Carlsbad NGL, LLC filed a petition for temporary waiver of the tariff filing and reporting requirements for liquids pipelines the Commission regulates under sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. app 6, 20 (1988), and 18 CFR parts 341 and 357 of the Commission's regulations, as more fully explained in the petition.

    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. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 15, 2017.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17954 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2660-029] Woodland Pulp LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Petition for Declaratory Order.

    b. Project No: 2660-029.

    c. Date Filed: July 27, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Woodland Pulp, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Forest City Project.

    f. Location: On the East Branch of the St. Croix River in Washington and Aroostook Counties, Maine.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(b) (2012).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Scott Beal, Woodland Pulp, LLC, 144 Main Street, Baileyville, ME 04694, Tel: 207-427-4004.

    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Mr. M. Joseph Fayyad, (202) 502-8759, or email: [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2660-029.

    k. Description of Project: The Forest City Project is located at river mile 58 of the East Branch of the St. Croix River on the international boundary between the United States and Canada. The existing project as licensed includes only the lands, waters, and structures that are located in the United States, which consist of: (a) A 147-foot-long section of the 540-foot-long, 12-foot-high earthen Forest City Dam that includes: (i) A 110-foot-long west earthen embankment, and (ii) a 37-foot-long section of the timber-crib spillway section with two 8.3-foot-wide, 10-foot-high spillway gates on the west side of the spillway, which control the impoundment between a minimum elevation of 427.94 feet mean sea level (msl) and a maximum elevation of 434.94 feet msl; (b) a 9,141-acre portion of the 17,040-acre multi-lake impoundment (North Lake and East Grand Lake); and (c) appurtenant facilities. The project does not occupy federal lands and there are no generating facilities located at the project. The Forest City Project supplies water to the unlicensed downstream Grand Falls and Woodland hydroelectric projects.

    In November 2015, the Commission issued Woodland Pulp a new license to operate and maintain the Forest City Project. In December 2016, Woodland Pulp filed an application to surrender its new license and decommission the project by removing the gates located on the United States side of the spillway. The Commission is considering the licensee's surrender and decommissioning proceeding in Project No. 2660-028.

    On July 24, 2017, Governor LePage of Maine signed into law a resolve authorizing Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (Maine DIFW) to assume ownership of the Forest City Dam pursuant to two conditions: (1) The Commission finds that the Forest City Project will not require a license from the Commission if Maine DIFW owns the U.S. portion of the dam; and (2) Maine DIFW executes an agreement with Woodland Pulp that provides that Woodland Pulp and its successors will operate and maintain the Forest City Dam consistent with the manner in which the dam was operated in most recent 12 months, at the direction of the State, and at no cost to the State, for a period of 15 years. On July 27, 2017, Maine DIFW and Woodland Pulp executed an operation and management agreement.

    l. Description of Request: The licensee requests the Commission to find that the Forest City Project will not be necessary or appropriate for any downstream unit of development if the licensee transfers the dam to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and will therefore no longer be required to be licensed pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act.

    m. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above and in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371.

    n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    o. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    p. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license surrender. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. 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.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17955 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-140-000.

    Applicants: Middle Daisy, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG of Middle Daisy, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170817-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-141-000.

    Applicants: Shoreham Solar Commons LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Shoreham Solar Commons LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-142-000.

    Applicants: Shoreham Solar Commons Holdings LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Shoreham Solar Commons Holdings LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-143-000.

    Applicants: Golden Hills North Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Golden Hills North Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2217-000.

    Applicants: Logan Generating Company, L.P.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2334-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Joint filing of an executed LGIA among NYISO, NMPC and Arkwright Summit Wind Far to be effective 8/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2335-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4762, Queue No. AC1-018 to be effective7/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2336-000.

    Applicants: Shoreham Solar Commons LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2337-000.

    Applicants: Shoreham Solar Commons Holdings LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170818-5138.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/17.

    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 18, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17950 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2343-086] PE Hydro Generation, LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the Millville Hydroelectric Project, located on the Shenandoah River, near the town of Harpers Ferry in Jefferson County, West Virginia, and has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (draft EA) for the project. The project does not occupy federal land.

    In the draft EA, Commission staff analyze the potential environmental effects of relicensing the project and conclude that continued project operation under a new license, with appropriate measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free number at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659.

    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    For further information, please contact Michael Spencer by telephone at (202) 502-6093 or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: August 16, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17965 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. EF17-2-000; EF17-3-000; EF17-4-000] Notice of Filing; Bonneville Power Administration

    Take notice that on August 10, 2017, Bonneville Power Administration submitted a Second Errata to its July 31, 2017 tariff filing per: BP-18 Power and Transmission Rates.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 30, 2017.

    Dated: August 16, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17964 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-46-000] Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fairburn Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Fairburn Expansion Project, proposed by Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC (Southern) in the above-referenced docket. Southern requests authorization to acquire, upgrade, construct, and operate certain natural gas pipeline and compression facilities in Clayton, Cobb, Fayetteville, Fulton, and Monroe Counties, Georgia. The project would provide approximately 343 million cubic feet per day of new firm transportation capacity to delivery points in Southern's Zone 2 and Zone 3 systems.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Fairburn Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.

    The proposed Fairburn Expansion Project includes the following facilities in Georgia:

    • One new 4.9-mile-long 30-inch-diameter Fairburn Lateral pipeline, extending from the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company interconnect in Fayette County to a new proposed 18,000-horsepower electric Fairburn Compressor Station with pig 1 receiver in Fulton County;

    1 A pig is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    • one 1.6-mile-long 30-inch-diameter South Main 2nd Loop 2 Line Extension pipeline along with pig receiver from mileposts 373.6 to 375.2 on Southern's existing South Main Line System in Monroe County;

    2 A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to an existing pipeline to increase capacity.

    • acquisition of the 19.7-mile-long 30-inch-diameter McDonough Lateral pipeline that extends from Southern's existing SNG-to-McDonough Meter Station in Fulton County to the proposed Plant McDonough Meter Station in Cobb County;

    • a new Plant McDonough Meter Station in Cobb County; a SNG-to-McDonough Meter Station modification in Fulton County; and a new UPS Meter Station in Fulton County, all located on the McDonough Lateral;

    • one new Transco-to-SNG Meter Station with pig launcher in Fayette County; and

    • modification of the Jonesboro Meter Station in Clayton County.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before September 18, 2017.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP17-46-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on eRegister. You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select Comment on a Filing; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).3 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    3 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on General Search, and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP17-46). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17951 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-484-000] Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of Amendment

    Take notice that on August 1, 2017, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (Natural), at 3250 Lacey Road, Downers Grove, IL 60615, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the above referenced docket a petition to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity in Docket No. CP11-547-000 for its 2012 Storage Optimization Project. Natural proposes to change the abandon of certain facilities at Compressor Station 310 (CS 310) located in Clinton County, Illinois, and Compressor Station 311 (CS 311) located in Piatt County, Illinois. Natural proposes to retain certain compressor units at CS 310 and CS 311 to reserve as redundant compression. These reserve units will only run if other units at these stations experience mechanical problems. Natural has previously received authority to abandon these units in place. Natural's filing is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. Any questions regarding this petition to amend should be directed Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, IL 60515, or by calling (630)725-3070 (telephone) [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 analysis (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 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 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. 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 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 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 September 8, 2017.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17953 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-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 18, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Kathryn Haney, Director of Applications) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. SmartFinancial, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee; to merge with Capstone Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Capstone Bank, both in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 18, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17890 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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 7, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Kathryn Haney, Director of Applications) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Wirt Adams Yerger, Jr.; Mary Montague Yerger; Wirt Adams Yerger, IV; Wirt Adams Yerger, IV, as custodian for Anny Elizabeth Yerger, Jane Ellen Yerger, and Mary Adams Yerger; Mary Montague Yerger Dunbar; Mary Montague Yerger Dunbar, trustee for Mary Montague Yerger Dunbar Revocable Trust; Mary Montague Yerger Dunbar, as custodian of Mary Montague Dunbar, all of Jackson, Mississippi; Wirt Adams Yerger, III and Linda Biggers Yerger, both of Inlet Beach, Florida; John Taylor Yerger, Dallas, Texas; Richard Montague Yerger, Birmingham, Alabama; James David Yerger, Raleigh, North Carolina; Thomas Yerger Dunbar and Wirt Yerger Dunbar, both of Austin, Texas; Frank Montague Yerger; Frank Montague Yerger, trustee for Frank Montague Yerger Revocable Trust; Jane P. Yerger; Jane P. Yerger, trustee for Frank Montague Yerger, Jr., Trust 2; Jane P. Yerger, trustee for Sara Jane Rivers Yerger Trust; and Jane P. Yerger, trustee for Harlan Prater Yerger Trust, all of Oxford, Mississippi; to collectively retain voting shares of PriorityOne Capital Corporation, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares in PriorityOne Bank, both in Magee, Mississippi.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. August 18, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17893 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Notice, request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend, with revision, the mandatory Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report (FR Y-15; OMB No. 7100-0352).

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR Y-15 by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

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

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

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

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

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

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

    The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on all aspects of the proposal, including the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposal prior to giving final approval.

    Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for Three Years, With Revision, of the Following Report

    Report Title: The Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report.

    Agency Form Number: FR Y-15.

    OMB Control Number: 7100-0352.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Respondents: U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs), covered savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs), and U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs) of foreign banking organizations with $50 billion or more of total consolidated assets, and any BHC designated as a global systemically important bank holding company (G-SIB) that does not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 40.

    Estimated Average Hours per Response: 401 hours.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 64,160 hours.

    General Description of Report: The FR Y-15 quarterly report collects systemic risk data from U.S. BHCs, covered SLHCs,1 and U.S. IHCs with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and any BHC identified as a G-SIB based on its method 1 score calculated as of December 31 of the previous calendar year 2 that does not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs. The Board uses the FR Y-15 data to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the systemic risk profile of institutions which are subject to enhanced prudential standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).3 In addition, the FR Y-15 is used to (i) facilitate the implementation of the surcharge for G-SIBs, (ii) identify other institutions which may present significant systemic risk, and (iii) analyze the systemic risk implications of proposed mergers and acquisitions.

    1 Covered SLHCs are those which are not substantially engaged in insurance or commercial activities. See 12 CFR 217.2, “covered savings and loan holding company.”

    2 See 12 CFR 217.402.

    3 12 U.S.C. 5365.

    Proposed Revisions: The FR Y-15 would be revised by (1) including Mexican pesos in total payments activity on Schedule C and removing it from the Memorandum items; (2) adding securities brokers to the definition of financial institutions in the instructions for Schedule B; (3) expressly including all cleared derivative transactions in Schedule D, item 1; (4) specifying how certain cleared derivatives transactions are reported in Schedule B, items 5(a) and 11(a); and (5) making minor clarifications to the form and instructions. The proposed changes would be effective for reports submitted on or after January 1, 2018, beginning with reports reflecting the December 31, 2017, report date.

    Legal Authorization and Confidentiality: The Board has determined that the FR Y-15 is authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act (sections 163, 165, and 604), the International Banking Act, the Bank Holding Company Act, and the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a, 1844, 3106, and 3108). The obligation to respond to the FR Y-15 is mandatory.

    Most of the data collected on the FR Y-15 is made public unless a specific request for confidentiality is submitted by the reporting entity, either on the FR Y-15 or on the form from which the data item is obtained.4 Such information will be accorded confidential treatment under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), if the submitter substantiates its assertion that disclosure would likely cause substantial competitive harm. To the extent confidential data collected under the FR Y-15 will be used for supervisory purposes, it may be exempt from disclosure under Exemption 8 of FOIA, (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).

    4 A number of the items in the FR Y-15 are retrieved from the FR Y-9C and certain items may be retrieved from the FFIEC-101 and FFIEC 009. Confidential treatment will also extend to any automatically-calculated items on the FR Y-15 that have been derived from confidential data items and that, if released, would reveal the underlying confidential data.

    Consultation Outside the Agency: The FR Y-15 was derived from data collections developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) to assess the global systemic importance of banks. The BCBS revised its data collations in January 2017 after consultation with representatives from numerous national supervisory authorities, including the Board.5 Many of the proposed revisions to the FR Y-15 would correspond to changes made to the BCBS data collection.

    5 See Instructions for the end-2016 G-SIB assessment exercise, January 2017, available at www.bis.org/bcbs/gsib/instr_end16_gsib.pdf.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 21, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17939 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 151 0138] National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Consent Agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write: “In the Matter of National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc. File No. 1510138” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/cattleartificialinseminationconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc. File No. 1510138” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Armando Irizarry (202-326-2964), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 18, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 19, 2017. Write “In the Matter of National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc. File No. 1510138” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/cattleartificialinseminationconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc. File No. 1510138” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC. 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC Web site—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC Web site, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

    Visit the FTC Web site to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 19, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) from the National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc. (“NAAB”). NAAB is a trade association of cattle artificial insemination firms.

    Dairy production in the United States is dependent on volume from more than 9.3 million cows, the market for which relies on services provided by NAAB member breeders. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with partial funding from the NAAB through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”), developed a new technology that is the best indicator of genetic merit of dairy bulls for use in artificial insemination in so far as yielding higher producing dairy cows. The Commission's complaint (“Complaint”) alleges that NAAB violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by restraining competition among its regular members in the use of this new technology, which dampened competition in the market for dairy bulls used for semen production.

    This matter reaffirms the longstanding rule that trade associations composed of members that compete among themselves, while typically serving important and procompetitive functions, must not adopt rules or regulations that unreasonably limit competition among their members. It also illustrates that industry groups that obtain valuable and unique technology from the government may not establish rules or regulations regarding that technology that unreasonably restrain competition.

    The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments from interested members of the public. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the Consent Agreement and comments received, and decide whether it should withdraw, modify, or make the Consent Agreement final.

    The Consent Agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by NAAB that it has violated the law as alleged in the Complaint or that the facts alleged in the Complaint, other than jurisdictional facts, are true.

    The purpose of this Analysis to Aid Public Comment is to invite and facilitate public comment. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement and the accompanying Proposed Order, or in any way modify their terms.

    I. The Complaint

    The Complaint makes the following allegations.

    NAAB is a non-profit corporation with about 24 regular members that compete among themselves and with others in the business of collecting, processing, freezing, marketing or selling dairy cattle semen for artificial insemination. NAAB's members buy dairy bulls from dairy farmers and breeders to produce semen for artificial insemination. NAAB members together account for more than 90 percent of dairy cattle semen sales in the United States.

    In September 2006, NAAB entered into a CRADA with the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to cooperate with a USDA laboratory in a project for developing the genomic testing technology described above. The CRADA granted NAAB exclusive access to the results of the CRADA project until February 2013. The CRADA did not restrain in any way the ability of NAAB or its members to use the new technology or to sell access to it, nor did it authorize NAAB or its members to adopt rules that restrain in any way the ability of its members to use the new technology or to sell access to it.

    By April 2008, the USDA laboratory had developed the new technology, known as the Genomic Predicted Transmitting Ability (“GPTA”), which analyzes the genetics of a dairy bull to predict the ability of the bull to transmit commercially important traits, such as milk yield, to its daughters. This new technology is superior to the traditional method of evaluating dairy bulls for semen production, and it became the best indicator of a dairy bull's commercial value for transmitting genetic traits.

    In October 2008, more than two years after entering into the CRADA, NAAB approved a resolution that regulated its members' access to the new technology during the exclusivity period granted by the CRADA (through February 2013). NAAB acted as a combination of its members when it approved the resolution.

    The resolution required that for a NAAB member to obtain the GPTA of a dairy bull, the Member had to have one of the following interests in the bull: (a) Own the bull, (b) have an agreement to purchase at least a 30 percent interest in the bull, (c) have a lease on the bull, or (d) have an exclusive marketing agreement for the bull. The USDA laboratory was the only source of GPTAs during the exclusivity period.

    The Complaint alleges that NAAB's resolution harmed competition by diminishing competition for dairy bulls used for semen production. First, it impeded the development of a market in which dairy farmers and breeders could pay NAAB members to obtain GPTAs for their dairy bulls. Second, the resolution limited NAAB members from obtaining the GPTA of bulls in which they did not already have a financial interest. Access to a bull's GPTA prior to buying or selling it would tend to increase competition and drive the price of the bull toward a value that more accurately reflects its ability to yield higher producing dairy cows. After the exclusivity period expired in February 2013, GPTAs became available for a fee through an industry organization.

    The Complaint alleges that the purpose, effect, tendency or capacity of the resolution was to restrain competition unreasonably among NAAB's Members, and that this conduct injured dairy farmers and breeders by depriving them of the benefits of free and open competition. Therefore, the resolution constitutes an unfair method of competition that violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

    II. The Proposed Order

    The Proposed Order has the following substantive provisions. Paragraph II requires NAAB to cease and desist from restraining the ability of its members to obtain, disclose, provide, use or sell any technology or information resulting from research projects conducted by, or pursuant to, an agreement to which NAAB is a party. The Proposed Order also prohibits NAAB from restraining price-related competition among its members relating to the sale or acquisition of bulls or bull semen.

    A proviso to Paragraph II specifies that the Proposed Order does not prohibit NAAB from engaging in any conduct that is reasonably necessary to achieve procompetitive benefits or efficiencies relating to NAAB's operation or to the operation of its members, provided that such benefits or efficiencies likely would offset the anticompetitive harms.

    Paragraph III requires that, for five years, NAAB notify the Commission if it adopts or modifies any regulation that restrains the ability of its members to obtain disclose, provide, sell or use any technology or information resulting from any research project.

    Paragraph V of the Proposed Order requires that NAAB implement an antitrust compliance program to ensure compliance with the Proposed Order and the antitrust laws.

    Paragraphs IV and VI-VIII of the Proposed Order impose certain standard reporting and compliance requirements on NAAB.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17880 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10371, CMS-10507, CMS-10558 and CMS-10650] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by September 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of an existing information collection request; Title of Information Collection: Cooperative Agreements to Support Establishment of State-Operated Health Insurance Exchanges; Use: All States (including the 50 States, consortia of States, and the District of Columbia herein referred to as States) had the opportunity under Section 1311(b) of the Affordable Care to apply for three types of grants: (1) Planning grants; (2) Early Innovator grants for early development of information technology; and (3) Establishment grants to develop, implement and start-up Marketplaces. As of January 1st, 2017, the Secretary has disbursed over $5.4 billion under this grant program and, as of that date, there were 19 active establishment grants awarded to 12 states. As the State-Based Marketplaces (SBM) and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) have matured and moved from the developmental phases to full-operation, the reporting requirements for the states have been modified and streamlined to insure only information necessary to provide effective oversight of their operations by CMS is collected.

    Given the innovative nature of Exchanges and the statutorily-prescribed relationship between the Secretary and States in their development and operation, it is critical that the Secretary work closely with States to provide necessary guidance and technical assistance to ensure that States can meet the prescribed timelines, federal requirements, and goals of the statute and the grants awarded to them. Form Number: CMS-10371 (OMB Control Number: 0938-1119); Frequency: Once; Affected Public: State Government agencies, non-profit entities; Number of Respondents: 17; Total Annual Responses: 37; Total Annual Hours: 12,328. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Nickom Sukachevin at (301) 492-4400).

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: State-based Marketplace Annual Reporting Tool (SMART); Use: The annual report is the primary vehicle to insure comprehensive compliance with all reporting requirements contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is specifically called for in Section 1313(a)(1) of the Act which requires an SBM to keep an accurate accounting of all activities, receipts, and expenditures, and to submit a report annually to the Secretary concerning such accounting. CMS will use the information collected from States to assist in determining if a State is maintaining a compliant operational Exchange. Form Number: CMS-10507 (OMB Control Number: 0938-1244); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal governments; Number of Respondents: 17; Total Annual Responses: 17; Total Annual Hours: 1,173. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Christy Woods at 301-492-5140).

    3. Title of Information Collection: Machine Readable Data for Provider Network and Prescription Formulary Content for FFM QHPs; Type of Information Collection Request: Extension without change of a currently approved collection; Use: Under 45 CFR 156.122(d)(1)(2) and 156.230(c) and in the final rule, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2018 (CMS-9934-F), standards for qualified health plan (QHP) issuers are established for the submission of provider and formulary data in a machine-readable format to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and for posting on issuer Web sites. These standards provide greater transparency for consumers, including by allowing software developers to access formulary and provider data to create innovative and informative tools. This Information Collection Request (ICR) serves as a formal request for 3-year OMB approval. On September 30, 2015, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) granted approval to the data collection Information Collection for Machine Readable Data for Provider Network and Prescription Formulary Content for FFM QHPs.

    The burden estimates for the data collection requirements included in this package reflect the time and effort for QHP issuers to update and publish the appropriate data, and submit it to CMS. Form Number: CMS-10558 (OMB) control number: 0938-1284); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Business, and Not-for Profits; Number of Respondents: 397; Number of Responses: 397; Total Hours: 208. (For questions regarding this collection, contact Joshua Annas at (301) 492-4407).

    4. Title of Information Collection: State Permissions for Enrollment in Qualified Health Plans in the Federally Facilitated Exchange & Non-Exchange Entities; Type of Information Collection Request: Request for a new OMB control number; Use: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, enacted on March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Public Law 111-152, enacted on March 30, 2010 (collectively, “Affordable Care Act”), expand access to health insurance for individuals and employees of small businesses through the establishment of new Affordable Insurance Exchanges (Exchanges), also called Marketplaces, including the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). The Exchanges, which became operational on January 1, 2014, enhance competition in the health insurance market, expand access to affordable health insurance for millions of Americans, and provide consumers with a place to easily compare and shop for health insurance coverage.

    This Information Collection Request (ICR) serves as the formal request for a new data collection associated with the HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2018 Final Rule (2018 Payment Notice). This ICR includes information collection requirements related to the ability of states to permit agents and brokers to assist qualified individuals, qualified employers, or qualified employees enrolling in Qualified Health Plans in the Federally Facilitated Exchange (§ 155.220) and ICRs related to non-exchange entities (§ 155.260). Form Number: CMS-10650 (OMB control number 0938-NEW); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Business, and Not-for Profits; Number of Respondents: 107,207; Number of Responses: 107,207; Total Annual Hours: 512,141. (For questions regarding this collection, contact Joshua Annas at (301-492-4407).

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Martique Jones, Director, Regulations Development Group, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17918 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Proposed Projects: Grant Reviewer Recruitment.

    Title: Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form.

    OMB No.: 0970-0455.

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families' Children's Bureau (CB) is responsible for administering the review of eligible grant applications submitted in response to funding opportunity announcements issued by CB. CB ensures that the objective review process is independent, efficient, effective, economical, and complies with the applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Applications are reviewed by subject experts knowledgeable in child welfare and related fields. Review findings are advisory to CB; CB is responsible for making award decisions.

    This announcement is a request for continued approval of the information collection system, the Reviewer Recruitment Module (RRM). CB uses a web-based data collection form and database to gather critical reviewer information in drop down menu format for data such as: Degree, occupation, affiliations with organizations and institutions that serve special populations, and demographic information that may be voluntarily provided by a potential reviewer.

    These data elements help CB find and select expert grant reviewers for objective review committees. The web-based system permits reviewers to access and update their information at will and as needed. The RRM is accessible by the general public via https://rrm.grantsolutions.gov/AgencyPortal/cb.aspx.

    Respondents: Generally, our reviewers are current or retired professionals with backgrounds in child welfare and related fields and in some instances current or former foster care parents or clients.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Reviewer Recruitment Module 500 1 .25 125

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 125.

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments 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) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17935 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-1956] Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act” (draft trading partner guidance). FDA is issuing this guidance to assist industry and State and local governments in understanding how to categorize the entities in the drug supply chain in accordance with the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA). This guidance explains how to determine when certain statutory requirements will apply to entities that may be considered trading partners in the drug supply chain. FDA is also soliciting public input specific to the activities of “private-label distributors” of drug products and whether those activities fall within the definitions under DSCSA of the various trading partners.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-D-1956 for “Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Mannion, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3130, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.” The DSCSA (Title II of Pub. L. 113-54) establishes new requirements to develop and enhance drug distribution security by 2023. It does this, in part, by defining different types of entities in the drug supply chain as trading partners (i.e., manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, third-party logistics providers, and dispensers). Among other things, the DSCSA requires that trading partners of manufacturers, wholesale distributors, dispensers, and repackagers must meet the applicable requirements for being “authorized trading partners.” In addition, the DSCSA outlines requirements for specific trading partners, including drug product tracing and licensure requirements. FDA has received questions about which types of entities are included in each of the trading partner definitions and this guidance is intended to help clarify and explain the relevant statutory provisions. The guidance covers who is considered to be a manufacturer, a repackager, a wholesale drug distributor, a third-party logistics provider, and a dispenser for purposes of certain DSCSA requirements.

    II. Additional Issues for Consideration: Specific Request for Comments and Information

    In addition to comments on the draft guidance generally, FDA is requesting comments specifically related to the activities of private-label distributors (PLDs), and whether those activities fall within the definitions under DSCSA of the various trading partners. FDA considers a PLD to be an entity that owns and distributes a manufactured product under its own label or trade name. Because there are many different business models for PLDs, resulting in situations where a PLD could be considered a manufacturer, wholesale distributor, or dispenser, we are asking for comments on how the different business models might impact a PLD's status as an authorized trading partner under the DSCSA.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (see 21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Identifying Trading Partners under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17919 Filed 8-21-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Notice of Supplemental Awards to the Territorial Health Departments of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands for the Zika Maternal and Child Health Services Program AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Supplemental Award.

    SUMMARY:

    HRSA announces the award of supplemental grants under the Zika Response and Preparedness Act to the territorial health departments of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands to address the unmet needs of women, children, and families who are or may be affected by Zika virus (ZIKV) infection.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Intended Recipient of the Award: Territorial health departments of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

    Amount of Non-Competitive Awards: Approximately $1,050,000.

    CFDA Number: 93.110.

    Authority: Zika Response and Preparedness Act (Pub. L. 114-223) and Section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701(a)(2)).

    Justification: The current spread of ZIKV poses a significant threat to public health, including the health of women, children, and families who are affected by ZIKV infection. ZIKV infection during pregnancy can cause serious birth defects, especially affecting the neurological system of the infant.

    Funding for these awards is available under the Zika Response and Preparedness Act through Special Projects of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS) funds.

    The needs of infants and children affected by ZIKV are complex. Families, health care providers, and public health professionals will be required to work together to assure that community-based, comprehensive, high quality health and social services are available to these children. The support system must address the medical needs of these children, such as regularly screening children who may not be symptomatic at birth; coordinate care through a medical home; finance care needed by children and families; link to community-based services; partner with families; and eventually address transition to adult services. Following HRSA's December 2016 grant awards to the territorial health departments of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands, recipients continued to identify pregnant women and infants with lab evidence of ZIKV infection that led them to refine their response to ZIKV. HRSA's Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) received information from the territorial health departments of unmet needs in their response to ZIKV through monitoring site visits, regular communication, and prior approval requests. Needs identified by recipients included additional equipment, personnel, and transportation services. With further analysis of other federal funding and the current epidemiologic data, MCHB confirmed additional funding is essential to ensure access to services and a comprehensive medical home for women, children, and families who are or may be affected by ZIKV infection. Disease burden and the significant increase in pregnant women and children with lab evidence of ZIKV infection in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands was also considered as a factor in determining the allocation of funds to the territories to address unmet needs. The period of performance of the supplemental award will be September 2017 through December 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maria Paz Carlos, Division of State and Community Health, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18N104A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; [email protected]

    Grantee/organization name Territory FY 2017
  • supplemental awards
  • Puerto Rico Health Department Puerto Rico $52,850 American Samoa Health Department American Samoa 423,142 U.S. Virgin Islands Health Department U.S. Virgin Islands 574,008
    Dated: August 18, 2017. George Sigounas, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17883 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) Program Deeming Applications for Health Center Volunteer Health Professionals, OMB No. 0906-XXXX, New AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR must be received no later than September 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the ICR Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Information Collection Request Title: Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) Program Deeming Applications for Health Center Volunteer Health Professionals OMB No. 0906-XXXX—New.

    Abstract: Section 224(q) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 233(q)), as amended, authorizes the “deeming” of certain individuals as PHS employees for the purposes of receiving Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) coverage. Section 224(q) relates to volunteer health professionals (VHPs) of Health Center Program grantees that have been deemed as PHS employees. The Health Center FTCA Program is administered by HRSA's Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC). Sponsoring health centers are required by law to submit deeming applications in the specified form and manner on behalf of named individuals for review and approval, resulting in a “deeming determination” that includes associated FTCA coverage for these individuals.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: Deeming applications must address certain specified criteria required by law in order for deeming determinations to be issued, and FTCA application forms are critical to BPHC's deeming determination process. These forms provide BPHC with the information essential for application evaluation and determination of whether an individual meets the requirements for deemed PHS employee status for the purposes of FTCA coverage. Because the 21st Century Cures Act extended FTCA coverage to VHPs, BPHC will add new FTCA application forms for use by health centers applying to sponsor volunteers to become volunteer health professionals with associated FTCA coverage for their activities within the scope of deemed employment on behalf of the health center.

    Likely Respondents: Respondents include Health Center Program funds recipients seeking deemed PHS employee status on behalf of their sponsored individuals for purposes of FTCA coverage.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. 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. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:

    Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • FTCA Health Center Volunteer Health Professional Program Application 1375 3 4125 2 8250 Total 1375 4125 8250

    HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Amy McNulty, Acting Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17926 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Peer Review Meeting.

    Date: September 18-19, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: The William F. Bolger Center, 9600 Newbridge Drive, Potomac, MD 20854.

    Contact Person: Julio Aliberti, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC-9823, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-7322, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01).

    Date: September 27, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Raymond R. Schleef, Ph.D., Senior Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3E61, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5019, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 18, 2017. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17892 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant and/or contract proposals applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant and/or contract proposals applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel SEER Program.

    Date: September 26-27, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Clifford W. Schweinfest, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Special Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W108, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6343, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel Emerging Questions in Cancer Systems Biology.

    Date: September 28, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Eun Ah Cho, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Special Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W104, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6342, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group Subcommittee J—Career Development.

    Date: October 17-18, 2017.

    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Tushar Deb, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W624, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6132, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group Subcommittee F—Institutional Training and Education.

    Date: October 23-24, 2017.

    Time: 7:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Timothy C. Meeker, M.D., Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W624, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6464, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 18, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17891 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) will meet in person and via web conference on September 19, 2017, from 9:30am to 5:00pm EDT and September 20, 2017, from 9:30am to 2:00pm EDT.

    The Board will meet in open session on September 19, 2017, from 9:30am to 12:45pm to provide updates on the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, present a study on the degradation of deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) in urine and oral fluid specimens, results from the opioid implementation performance testing (PT) samples, lessons learned from the pilot PT program for oral fluid, and the detection of opioid glucuronides in drug user hair. Public comments are welcome. If you intend to provide public comments, please register and provide a summary of your comments to the contact listed below. The Division of Workplace Programs will review public comments to ensure that they address the topics scheduled to be discussed during the meeting and adhere to the meeting's established time limits for public comments.

    The board will meet in closed session on September 19, 2017, from 2:00pm to 5:00pm EDT and on September 20, 2017, from 9:30am to 2:00pm EDT to hear about current confidential practices in the hair testing industry and to discuss proposed revisions of the Oral Fluid Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. These portions of the meeting are closed to the public as determined by the Administrator, SAMHSA, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (9)(B), and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).

    To obtain the web conference call-in numbers and access codes, registration can be completed online at http://snacregister.samhsa.gov/MeetingList.aspx.

    Meeting information and a roster of DTAB members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Advisory Committees Web site, http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/drug-testing-advisory-board-dtab, or by contacting Brian Makela.

    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Drug Testing Advisory Board Dates/Time/Type: September 19, 2017, from 9:30am to 12:45pm, EDT: Open, September 19, 2017, from 2:00pm to 5:00pm, EDT: Closed, September 20, 2017, from 9:30am to 2:00pm, EDT: Closed Place: Parklawn Building, Rooom 5E29, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 Contact: Brian Makela, Division of Workplace Programs, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N02B, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: 240-276-2600, Fax: 240-276-2610, Email: [email protected]. Brian Makela, Chemist, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17963 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0723] Public Workshop on Marine Technology and Standards AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is correcting a notice that appeared in the Federal Register of August 8, 2017. The document announced an upcoming Public Workshop on Marine Technology and Standards to be held on October 16 and 17, 2017 in Washington, DC. The document had an incorrect amount for the registration fee.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice, contact Wayne Lundy, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, USCG, by telephone at (202) 372-1379 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of August 8, 2017 (82 FR 37104), the Coast Guard published a notice announcing a Public Workshop on Marine Technology and Standards.

    Correction

    In FR Notice Doc. No. 2017-16694, published August 8, 2017, at 82 FR 37104, make the following corrections:

    1. On page 37105 in the second column under “Registration”, correct the phrase “$325 USD if submitted on or before October 2, 2017 and $375 USD if submitted after October 2, 2017” to read “$490 USD if submitted on or before October 15, 2017 and $540 USD if registering on-site.”

    2. Following the words “if registering on-site”, from the correction in paragraph 1 above, add the following sentence:

    “In addition, registered attendees may receive a certificate from ASME following the workshop that awards Professional Development Hours for attendance at all sessions over the 2-day period.”

    Dated: August 18, 2017. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17889 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

    DATES:

    Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    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 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 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.

    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    This new or modified flood hazard information, 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.

    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 31, 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
  • Date of modification Community No.
    Arizona: City of Goodyear (16-09-0749P) The Honorable Georgia Lord Mayor, City of Goodyear 190 North Litchfield Road Goodyear, AZ 85338 Engineering Department 14455 West Van Buren Street Goodyear, AZ 85338 May 12, 2017 040046 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Unincorporated Areas of Maricopa County (16-09-2698P) The Honorable Clint L. Hickman Chairman, Board of Supervisors Maricopa County 301 West Jefferson Street 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Flood Control District of Maricopa County 2801 West Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009 May 26, 2017 040037 Pinal (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Town of Florence (16-09-1788P) The Honorable Tom Rankin Mayor, Town of Florence 775 North Main Street Florence, AZ 85132 Department of Public Works 425 East Ruggles Street Florence, AZ 85132 May 12, 2017 040084 California: Calaveras (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) City of Angels (16-09-3078P) The Honorable Wes Kulm Mayor, City of Angels 584 South Main Street Angels Camp, CA 95222 Public Works Department 2990 Centennial Road Angels Camp, CA 95222 May 17, 2017 060021 Calaveras (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Unincorporated Areas of Calaveras County (16-09-3078P) The Honorable Michael C. Oliveria Chairman, Board of Supervisors Calaveras County 891 Mountain Ranch Road San Andreas, CA 95249 Calaveras County Planning Department 891 Mountain Ranch Road San Andreas, CA 95249 May 17, 2017 060633 Monterey (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Unincorporated Areas of Monterey County (17-09-0070P) The Honorable Jane Parker Chair, Board of Supervisors Monterey County P.O. Box 1728 Salinas, CA 93902 Monterey County Water Resources Agency 893 Blanco Circle Salinas, CA 93901 May 18, 2017 060195 San Diego (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) City of Poway (17-09-0196P) The Honorable Steve Vaus Mayor, City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 City Hall 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 May 26, 2017 060702 Idaho: Ada (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Unincorporated Areas of Ada County (16-10-1405P) Mr. Jim Tibbs Commissioner, Ada County 200 West Front Street 3rd Floor Boise, ID 83702 Ada County County Courthouse 200 West Front Street Boise, ID 83702 May 17, 2017 160001 Illinois: Will (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Village of Romeoville (16-05-5619P) The Honorable John D. Noak Mayor, Village of Romeoville 1050 West Romeo Road Romeoville, IL 60446 Village Hall 1050 West Romeo Road Romeoville, IL 60446 May 19, 2017 170711 Indiana: Miami (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) City of Peru (16-05-4366P) The Honorable Gabriel Greer Mayor, City of Peru City Hall 35 South Broadway Peru, IN 46970 Miami County Courthouse 25 North Broadway Street Peru, IN 46970 May 17, 2017 180168 Miami (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Unincorporated Areas of Miami County (16-05-4366P) The Honorable Josh Francis Chairman, Miami County Commissioners Miami County Courthouse 25 North Broadway Peru, IN 46970 Miami County Courthouse 25 North Broadway Street Room 105 Peru, IN 46970 May 17, 2017 180409 Iowa: Scott (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) City of Davenport (16-07-1205P) The Honorable Frank Klipsch Mayor, City of Davenport City Hall 226 West 4th Street Davenport, IA 52801 City Hall 226 West 4th Street Davenport, IA 52801 May 18, 2017 190242 Minnesota: Clay (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Unincorporated Areas of Clay County (17-05-0558P) The Honorable Wayne Ingersoll Vice Chair, Clay County Board of Commissioners 807 11th Street North Moorhead, MN 56560. Clay County Courthouse 807 11th Street North Moorhead, MN 56560. May 9, 2017 275235 Missouri: St. Charles (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) City of O'Fallon (16-07-1736P) The Honorable Bill Hennessy Mayor, City of O'Fallon 100 North Main Street O'Fallon, MO 63366 City Hall 100 North Main Street O'Fallon, MO 63366 May 12, 2017 290316 St. Charles (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County (16-07-1736P) Mr. Steve Ehlmann County Executive, St. Charles County 100 North 3rd Street Suite 318 St. Charles, MO 63301 County Administration Building 202 North 2nd Street Suite 420 St. Charles, MO 63301 May 12, 2017 290315 Ohio: Huron (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) City of Bellevue (16-05-5908P) The Honorable Kevin G. Strecker Mayor, City of Bellevue 3000 Seneca Industrial Parkway Bellevue, OH 44811 Bellevue City Centre 3000 Seneca Industrial Parkway Bellevue, OH 44811 May 12, 2017 390487 Sandusky (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Unincorporated Areas of Sandusky County (16-05-5908P) Mr. Charles Schwochow Sandusky County Commissioner 622 Croghan Street Fremont, OH 43420 Sandusky Regional Planning Office 606 West State Street Fremont, OH 43420 May 12, 2017 390486 Texas: Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) City of Colleyville (17-06-0726P) The Honorable David Kelly Mayor, City of Colleyville City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 City Hall 401 Oak Valley Road Colleyville, TX 76034 Apr. 26, 2017 480590 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) City of Euless (17-06-0726P) The Honorable Linda Martin Mayor, City of Euless City Hall 201 North Ector Drive Euless, TX 76039 City Hall 201 North Ector Drive Euless, TX 76039 Apr. 26, 2017 480593 Wisconsin: Rock (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) City of Evansville (16-05-6630P) The Honorable Bill Hurtley Mayor, City of Evansville City Hall 31 South Madison Street Evansville, WI 53536 City Hall 31 South Madison Street Evansville, WI 53536 May 4, 2017 550366 Rock (FEMA Docket No.: B-1706) Unincorporated Areas of Rock County (16-05-6630P) Mr. Joshua M. Smith County Administrator Rock County Rock County Courthouse 51 South Main Street Janesville, WI 53545 Rock County Courthouse 51 South Main Street Janesville, WI 53545 May 4, 2017 550363
    [FR Doc. 2017-17761 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DHS-2017-0043] Meeting of the DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Privacy Office, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee management; notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 19, 2017, in Washington, DC The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 19, 2017, from 12:45 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Please note that the meeting may end early if the Committee has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held both in person in Washington, DC at 90 K Street NE., 12th Floor, Room 1204 A&B, Washington, DC, 20002, and via online forum (URL will be posted on the Privacy Office Web site in advance of the meeting at www.dhs.gov/privacy-advisory-committees). For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, as soon as possible.

    To facilitate public participation, we invite public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Supplementary Information” section below. A public comment period will be held during the meeting from 3:20 p.m.—3:30 p.m., and speakers are requested to limit their comments to three minutes. If you would like to address the Committee at the meeting, we request that you register in advance by contacting Sandra Taylor at the address provided below or sign up at the registration desk on the day of the meeting. The names and affiliations, if any, of individuals who address the Committee are included in the public record of the meeting. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Written comments should be sent to Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, by September 11, 2017. Persons who wish to submit comments and who are not able to attend or speak at the meeting may submit comments at any time. All submissions must include the Docket Number (DHS-2017-0043) and may be submitted by any one of the following methods:

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

    E-mail: [email protected] Include the Docket Number (DHS-2017-0043) in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 343-4010.

    Mail: Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0655, Washington, DC 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the words “Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee” and the Docket Number (DHS-2017-0043). Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    If you wish to attend the meeting, please bring a government issued photo I.D. and plan to arrive at 90 K Street NE., 12th Floor, Room 1204 A&B, Washington, DC no later than 12:35 p.m. The DHS Privacy Office encourages you to register for the meeting in advance by contacting Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, at [email protected] Advance registration is voluntary. The Privacy Act Statement below explains how DHS uses the registration information you may provide and how you may access or correct information retained by DHS, if any.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received by the DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for docket number DHS-2017-0043.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0655, Washington, DC 20528, by telephone (202) 343-1717, by fax (202) 343-4010, or by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, U.S.C., appendix. The DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee provides advice at the request of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the DHS Chief Privacy Officer on programmatic, policy, operational, administrative, and technological issues within DHS that relate to personally identifiable information, as well as data integrity and other privacy-related matters. The Committee was established by the Secretary of Homeland Security under the authority of 6 U.S.C. 451.

    Proposed Agenda

    During the meeting, the Chief Privacy Officer will provide remarks to the Committee and the Deputy Chief Privacy Officer will provide an update on the activities of the Privacy Office since the last meeting. The Committee will also receive briefings on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Biometric Travel Security Initiatives and the DHS Office of Policy's Immigration Data Initiative. The Committee will also receive two taskings. The final agenda will be posted on or before September 5, 2017, on the Committee's Web site at www.dhs.gov/privacy-advisory-committees. Please note that the meeting may end early if all business is completed.

    Privacy Act Statement: DHS's Use of Your Information

    Authority: DHS requests that you voluntarily submit this information under its following authorities: the Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 3101; the FACA, 5 U.S.C. appendix; and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    Principal Purposes: When you register to attend a DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee meeting, DHS collects your name, contact information, and the organization you represent, if any. We use this information to contact you for purposes related to the meeting, such as to confirm your registration, to advise you of any changes in the meeting, or to assure that we have sufficient materials to distribute to all attendees. We may also use the information you provide for public record purposes such as posting publicly available transcripts and meeting minutes.

    Routine Uses and Sharing: In general, DHS will not use the information you provide for any purpose other than the Principal Purposes, and will not share this information within or outside the agency. In certain circumstances, DHS may share this information on a case-by-case basis as required by law or as necessary for a specific purpose, as described in the DHS/ALL-002 Mailing and Other Lists System of Records Notice (November 25, 2008, 73 FR 71659).

    Effects of Not Providing Information: You may choose not to provide the requested information or to provide only some of the information DHS requests. If you choose not to provide some or all of the requested information, DHS may not be able to contact you for purposes related to the meeting.

    Accessing and Correcting Information: If you are unable to access or correct this information by using the method that you originally used to submit it, you may direct your request in writing to the DHS Deputy Chief FOIA Officer at [email protected] Additional instructions are available at http://www.dhs.gov/foia and in the DHS/ALL-002 Mailing and Other Lists System of Records referenced above.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Philip S. Kaplan, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17980 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-860 (Third Review)] Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet From Japan; Notice of Commission Determination To Conduct a Full Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the review will be established and announced at a later date.

    DATES:

    August 4, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Casanova (202-708-2719), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 4, 2017, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that both the domestic and respondent interested party group responses to its notice of institution (82 FR 20378, May 1, 2017) were adequate. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 18, 2017. Katherine M. Hiner, Supervisory Attorney.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17884 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, U.S. International Trade Commission has submitted a 30-day Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted September 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Room 10102 (Docket Library), Washington DC 20503, Attention: Docket Librarian. Copies of any comments should be provided to Kirit Amin, Chief Information Officer, U.S. International Trade commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, who is the Commissions' designated Senior Official under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Secretary at 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting our TDD terminal (telephone no. 202-205-1810). Also, general information about the Commission can be obtained from its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information, please contact Jeremy Wise at 202-205-3190.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    The U.S. International Trade commission received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the Federal Register of May 26, 2017 (82 FR 24398).

    Below we provide the U.S. International trade Commission's projected average estimates for the next three years:

    Current Actions: Extension of current clearance.

    Type of Review: New Collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses and Organizations.

    Average Expected Number of Activities (annual): 10.

    Average Number of Respondents (per activity): 60.

    Annual Responses (annual): 600.

    Frequency of Response: Once per request.

    Average Minutes per Response: 30.

    Average Burden Hours (annual): 300.

    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 Office of Management and Budget control number.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 21, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17969 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Proposed Renewal of Existing Collection; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Agreement and Undertaking (OWCP-1). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    DATES:

    You may submit comments by mail, delivery service, or by hand to Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3323, Washington, DC 20210; by fax to (202) 354-9647; or by Email to [email protected] Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail/delivery, fax, or Email). Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be considered.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95).

    I. Background: Coal mine operators desiring to be self-insurers are required by law (30 U.S.C. 933 BL) to produce security by way of an indemnity bond, security deposit, a letter of credit, or 501(c)(21) trust. Once a company's application to become self-insured is reviewed by the Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation (DCMWC) and it is determined the company is potentially eligible, an amount of security is determined to guarantee the payment of benefits required by the Act. The OWCP-1 form is executed by the self-insurer who agrees to abide by the Department's rules and authorizes the Secretary, in the event of default, to file suit to secure payment from a bond underwriter or in the case of a Federal Reserve account, to sell the securities for the same purpose. A company cannot be authorized to self-insure until this requirement is met. Regulations establishing this requirement are at 20 CFR 726.110 for Black Lung. This information collection is currently approved for use through January 31, 2018.

    II. Review Focus: The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

    * 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;

    * 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;

    * enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    * 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 submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions: The Department of Labor seeks the approval of the extension of this currently approved information collection in order to determine if a coal mine company is potentially eligible to become self-insured. The information is reviewed to insure that the correct amounts of negotiable securities are deposited or indemnity bond is purchased and that in a case of default OWCP has the authority to utilize the securities or bond. If this Agreement and Undertaking were not required, OWCP would not be empowered to utilize the company's security deposit to meet its financial responsibilities for the payment of black lung benefits in case of default.

    Type of Review: Extension.

    Agency: Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

    Title: Agreement and Undertaking.

    OMB Number: 1240-0039.

    Agency Number: OWCP-1.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

    Total Respondents: 17.

    Total Responses: 17.

    Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $9.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 14, 2017. Yoon Ferguson, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17525 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CR-P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting Date and Time:

    The Legal Services Corporation's Finance Committee will meet telephonically on August 31, 2017. The meeting will commence at 3:15 p.m., EDT, and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.

    Location:

    John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007.

    Public Observation:

    Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.

    Call-in Directions for Open Sessions:

    • Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;

    • When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348.

    • When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.

    Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public.

    Status of Meeting:

    Open.

    Matters to be Considered:

    1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session telephonic meeting of June 21, 2017 3. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session telephonic meeting of June 26, 2017 4. Discussion regarding recommendations for LSC's Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget request 5. Public comment regarding FY 2019 budget request 6. Consider and act on FY 2019 Budget Request Resolution 2017-XXX 7. Additional public comment 8. Consider and act on other business 9. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting. Contact Person for Information:

    Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to [email protected]

    Accessibility:

    LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or [email protected], at least 2 business days in advance of the meeting. If a request is made without advance notice, LSC will make every effort to accommodate the request but cannot guarantee that all requests can be fulfilled.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18023 Filed 8-22-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION [NARA-2017-060] Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the Federal Register for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records they no longer need to conduct agency business. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules.

    DATES:

    NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by September 25, 2017. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:

    Mail: NARA (ACRA); 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 301-837-3698.

    You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at (301) 837-1799, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NARA publishes notice in the Federal Register for records schedules they no longer need to conduct agency business. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).

    Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

    The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)

    Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.

    In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.

    Schedules Pending

    1. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid (DAA-0441-2016-0001, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system relating to the administration of Federal student loan accounts.

    2. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (DAA-0568-2017-0013, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to detect radiation in shipments and other conveyances arriving in U.S. ports.

    3. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA-0567-2015-0015, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Records related to detention center inspections and sexual abuse prevention policy development. Proposed for permanent retention are national detention center standards.

    4. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA-0567-2017-0002, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system used to manage immigration status inquiries and responses involving Federal, state, local, tribal, and international criminal justice agencies.

    5. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA-0567-2017-0008, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to national detention center standards development and implementation.

    6. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, Agency-wide (DAA-0220-2017-0013, 9 items, 3 temporary items). Records related to Commission meetings, hearings, the Commissioner's report, working papers, and daily staff activities. Proposed for permanent retention are records documenting public input, meeting materials, and the final Commissioner's report.

    7. National Archives and Records Administration, Research Services (N2-456-16-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of the Defense Mapping Agency including digital database files and digital radar landmass simulation files. These records were accessioned to the National Archives without the required documentation to access/use data. The records are unreadable and thus lack sufficient historical value to warrant continued preservation.

    Laurence Brewer, Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17923 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board Members AGENCY:

    National Capital Planning Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board.

    SUMMARY:

    The current United States Code or its supplement requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more Performance Review Boards (PRB) to review, evaluate and make a final recommendation on performance appraisals assigned to individual members of the agency's Senior Executive Service (SES). The PRB established for the National Capital Planning Commission also makes recommendations to the agency head regarding SES performance awards, rank awards and bonuses. The current United States Code or its supplement also requires that notice of appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the Federal Register.

    The following persons have been appointed to serve as members of the Performance Review Board for the National Capital Planning Commission: Vicki Barber, Mary John, Paige Cottinghamstreater, and Christopher J. Roscetti from October 23, 2017 to October 22, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah Young, Administrative Officer, National Capital Planning Commission, 401 9th Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004, (202) 482-7228.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Barry S. Socks, Chief Operating Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17973 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee meeting (#13883).

    Date and Time: September 27, 2017 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. September 28, 2017 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

    Place: National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314, Rooms E2020 and E2030.

    Type of Meeting: Open.

    Contact Person: Dr. Christopher Davis, Program Director, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Suite 1045, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703-292-4910.

    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on issues within the field of astronomy and astrophysics that are of mutual interest and concern to the agencies.

    Agenda: To hear presentations of current programming by representatives from NSF, NASA, DOE and other agencies relevant to astronomy and astrophysics; to discuss current and potential areas of cooperation between the agencies; to formulate recommendations for continued and new areas of cooperation and mechanisms for achieving them.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17930 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Site visit review of a Science and Technology Center on Real-Time Functional Imaging (STROBE)—Division of Materials Research (DMR) #1203

    Date and Time: September 6, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. September 7, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

    Place: University of Colorado, Boulder—Auditorium C120, Sustainability, Energy and Environment Complex (SEEC), CU Boulder East Campus, Boulder, Colorado 80303.

    Type of Meeting: Part Open.

    Contact Person: Dr. Charles Ying, Program Director, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-8428.

    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations concerning progress of the Science and Technology Center.

    Agenda Wednesday, September 6, 2017 8:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Open—Review of STROBE 10:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Closed—Executive Session Thursday, September 7, 2017 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Closed—Executive Session

    Reason for Late Notice: Due to unforeseen scheduling complications and the necessity to proceed with the review.

    Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed and evaluated during closed portions of the site review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C.552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17927 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering—PIRE “ExTerra Field Institute and Research Endeavor (E-FIRE)” Site Visit (#10749).

    Date/Time: September 6, 2017 8:00 a.m.-9:30 p.m. September 7, 2017 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

    Place: Boise State University, Department of Geosciences, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725-1135.

    Type of Meeting: Part Open.

    Contact Person: Charles Estabrook, PIRE Program Manager, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230; Telephone 703/292-7222.

    Purpose of Meeting: NSF site visit during year 2 of the five-year award period to conduct an in-depth evaluation of performance, to assess progress towards goals, and to provide recommendations.

    Agenda Wednesday, September 6, 2017 8:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Introductions, PIRE Rationale and Goals, Administration, Management, and Budget Plans, Review of Responses to Issues by Past Reviewers 10:00 a.m.-10:20 a.m. NSF Executive Session/Break (CLOSED) 10:20 a.m.-Noon Research, Facilities and Physical Infrastructure Noon-12:30 p.m. NSF Executive Session (CLOSED) 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Lunch—Discussion with Students 1:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Integrating Research and Education, Developing Human Resources, Integrating Diversity 3:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. NSF Executive Session/Break (CLOSED) 3:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Partnerships 4:15 p.m.-5:15 p.m. Wrap up 5:15 p.m.-6:15 p.m. Executive Session/Break (CLOSED) 6:15 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Critical Feedback Provided to PI 8:00 p.m.-9:30 p.m. NSF Executive Session/Working Dinner (CLOSED) Committee organizes on its own Thursday, September 7, 2017 8:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. Institutional Support (Administrators and PI/Co-PIs) (CLOSED) 9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Summary/Proposing Team to Critical Feedback (CLOSED) 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Site Review Team Prepares Site Visit Report (CLOSED) (Working Lunch Provided) 4:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Presentation of Site Visit Report to Principal Investigator (CLOSED)

    Reason for Late Notice: Due to unforeseen scheduling complications and the necessity to proceed with the review of proposals.

    Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed and evaluated during closed portions of the site review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C.552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17928 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering—PIRE “Research and Education in Active Coatings Technologies (REACT) for the Human Habitat” Site Visit (#10749).

    Date/Time: September 18, 2017 8:00 a.m.-9:30 p.m. September 19, 2017 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

    Place: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, 3231 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6272.

    Type of Meeting: Part open.

    Contact Person: Cassandra Dudka, PIRE Program Manager, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230; Telephone 703/292-7250.

    Purpose of Meeting: NSF site visit during year 2 of the five-year award period to conduct an in-depth evaluation of performance, to assess progress towards goals, and to provide recommendations.

    Agenda Monday, September 18, 2017 8:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Introductions, PIRE Rationale and Goals, Research, Why GIANT as partner? a) facilities, b) expertise, c) ecosystem/environment 10:00 a.m.-10:20 a.m. NSF Executive Session/Break (CLOSED) 10:20 a.m.-Noon Integrating Research and Education across REACT Adjustments made from original proposal Noon-12:30 p.m. NSF Executive Session (CLOSED) 12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Lunch—Discussion with Students 2:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Tour of Facilities with REACT Fellows 2:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. REACT Expanded—spinoffs and new opportunities 3:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. NSF Executive Session/Break (CLOSED) 3:30 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Administration, Management, and Budget Plans 4:15 p.m.-5:15 p.m. Wrap up 5:15 p.m.-6:15 p.m. Executive Session/Break (CLOSED) 6:15 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Critical Feedback Provided to PI 8:00 p.m.-9:30 p.m. NSF Executive Session/Working Dinner (CLOSED) Committee organizes on its own Tuesday, September 19, 2017 8:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. Institutional Support (Administrators and PI/Co-PIs) (CLOSED) 9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Summary/Proposing Team to Critical Feedback (CLOSED) 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Site Review Team Prepares Site Visit Report (CLOSED) (Working Lunch Provided) 4:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Presentation of Site Visit Report to Principal Investigator (CLOSED)

    Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed and evaluated during closed portions of the site review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C.552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17929 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Extension of Call for Nominations for the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes AGENCY:

    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of extension.

    SUMMARY:

    A call for nominations was published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the Federal Register on June 22, 2017, for the positions of Agreement State representative, nuclear medicine physicist, and Health Care Administrator on the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI). The nomination period ended on August 21, 2017. This notice confirms a 45-day extension of the nomination period until October 5, 2017, for only the Health Care Administrator position.

    DATES:

    The nomination period for the notice published June 22, 2017 (82 FR 28533) is extended. Nominations for the Health Care Administrator position are due on or before October 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nomination Process: Submit an electronic copy of a resume or curriculum vitae, along with a cover letter, to Ms. Sophie Holiday, [email protected] The resume or curriculum vitae for the Health Care Administrator should include the following information, as applicable: Education; certification; professional association membership and committee membership activities; and number of years, recentness, and type of setting for health care administration. The cover letter should describe the nominee's current involvement with health care administration and express the nominee's interest in the position. Nominees for the Health Care Administrator position should have professional or personal experience with or knowledge about health care administration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sophie Holiday, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; (301) 415-7865; [email protected]

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on August 21, 2017.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17957 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2017-0183] Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials Outside Reactor Cores AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-3053, “Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials Outside Reactor Cores.” This DG would be published as Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 3.71. The proposed revision would provide methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for criticality safety standards used with nuclear materials outside reactor cores. The revision would provide up-to-date guidance based on changes to American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS)-8 standards. The revision would also endorse International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 7753:1987, “Nuclear Energy—Performance and Testing Requirements for Criticality Detection and Alarm Systems.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by October 23, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0183. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-8-D36M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Tripp, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-8741, email: [email protected], and Harriet Karagiannis, telephone: 301-415-2493, email: [email protected], Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Both are staff members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0183 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publically-available information related to this action, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0183.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. The DG-3053 is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17055B591.

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0183 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enters the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

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

    II. Additional Information

    The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

    The DG, entitled “Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials Outside Reactor Cores,” is a proposed revision temporarily identified by its task number, DG-3053. The DG-3053 is proposed Revision 3 of RG 3.71, “Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials outside Reactor Cores.” The NRC initially issued RG 3.71 in 1998, and it was revised in 2005 and again in 2010. The three previous versions of RG 3.71 endorsed specific safety standards developed by ANSI/ANS-8 to provide guidance, criteria, and best practices for use in preventing and mitigating criticality accidents during operations that involve handling, processing, storing, or transporting special nuclear material at fuel and material facilities (or a combination of these activities). The proposed Revision 3 would revise the RG based on changes to ANSI/ANS-8 standards, with certain exceptions and clarifications. The revision would also consolidate and replace a number of earlier NRC RGs, thereby incorporating all of the relevant guidance in a single document. This revision would also endorse International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 7753:1987, “Nuclear Energy—Performance and Testing Requirements for Criticality Detection and Alarm Systems.” In addition, the scope of this revision is expanded beyond part 70 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), fuel facilities to include transportation and storage facilities under parts 71 and 72.

    III. Backfitting

    This DG-3053 would update RG 3.71 based on changes to ANSI/ANS standards, as well as endorsing an ISO standard and expanding the scope of the RG to include 10 CFR part 71 and part 72 licensees. Issuance of DG-3053 would not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR part 70 or part 72. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this DG, the NRC has no current intention to impose the DG on current holders of 10 CFR part 70 or part 72 licenses. The DG could be applied to applications for licenses issued under 10 CFR part 70 or part 72 or amendments thereto. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 70.76 or 10 CFR 72.62, inasmuch as such applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by 10 CFR 70.76 or 10 CFR 72.62.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on August 18, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Thomas H. Boyce, Chief, Regulatory Guidance and Generic Issues Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17934 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2017-171 and CP2017-272; MC2017-172 and CP2017-273; MC2017-173; CP2017-274] New Postal Products AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

    The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

    Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

    The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    1. Docket No(s).: MC2017-171 and CP2017-272; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 341 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: August 17, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30; Public Representative: Timothy J. Schwuchow; Comments Due: August 25, 2017.

    2. Docket No(s).: MC2017-172 and CP2017-273; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 78 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: August 17, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30; Public Representative: Timothy J. Schwuchow; Comments Due: August 25, 2017.

    3. Docket No(s).: MC2017-173 and CP2017-274; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 51 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: August 17, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30; Public Representative: Michael L. Leibert; Comments Due: August 25, 2017.

    This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17885 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 52 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-174, CP2017-275.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17894 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 53 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-175, CP2017-276.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17895 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 17, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 51 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-173, CP2017-274.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17881 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 17, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 78 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-172, CP2017-273.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17879 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 22 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-177, CP2017-278.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17888 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81439; File No. SR-NSCC-2017-015] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend and Clarify a Margin Charge Relating to CNS Fails Position August 18, 2017

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on August 11, 2017, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend provisions in NSCC's Rules and Procedures (“Rules”) 3 regarding an existing margin charge that is applied when a Member fails to settle a Short Position or a Long Position by the applicable settlement date (“CNS Fails Charge”) and would clarify NSCC's current practices with respect to the assessment and collection of the CNS Fails Charge.

    3 Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    (A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The proposed rule change would (1) amend provisions in the Rules regarding the CNS Fails Charge, which NSCC currently imposes on each NSCC member (“Member”),4 as part of each Member's Required Deposit to the NSCC Clearing Fund, which is due at the start of each business day, when all conditions to the application of the charge, as described below, are met, and (2) clarify NSCC's current practices with respect to the assessment and collection of the CNS Fails Charge.

    4 The CNS Fails Charge is currently imposed by NSCC pursuant to Procedure XV, Section I.(A)(1)(f). Id.

    (i) The Required Deposit and the CNS Fails Charge

    NSCC uses a risk-based margin methodology to assess Required Deposits from all Members. The Required Deposit is comprised of a number of risk-based component charges, including the CNS Fails Charge, which are calculated and assessed daily. The objective of the Required Deposit is to mitigate potential losses to NSCC associated with the liquidation of the Member's portfolio if NSCC ceases to act for a Member.5

    5 When NSCC restricts a Member's access to services generally, NSCC is said to have “ceased to act” for the Member. Rule 46 (Restrictions on Access to Services) sets out the circumstances under which NSCC may cease to act for a Member and the types of actions it may take. Supra note 3.

    When a Member does not satisfy its obligation to either pay the net settlement proceeds or deliver the securities due by the applicable Settlement Date, NSCC, as a central counterparty, is exposed to credit and market risks. Such exposures generally increase when the Member's risk of default increases, as reflected by the Member's credit rating derived from the Credit Risk Rating Matrix.6 Therefore, in order to reduce the risk exposures to NSCC and to incentivize Members to satisfy their obligations relating to their outstanding trades on Settlement Date, NSCC currently calculates and collects the CNS Fails Charge from Members with Short Positions and/or Long Positions that did not settle on the Settlement Date (“CNS Fails Positions”). The amount of the CNS Fails Charge imposed on a Member varies based on the Member's credit rating derived from the Credit Risk Rating Matrix to reflect the potential increase in credit risk from Members with higher risk of default.

    6See Exchange Act Release Nos. 80734 (May 19, 2017), 82 FR 24177 (May 25, 2017) (SR-NSCC-2017-002) and 80731 (May 19, 2017), 82 FR 24174 (May 25, 2017) (SR-NSCC-2017-801).

    This proposed rule change would amend the Rules regarding the CNS Fails Charge. Specifically, where certain percentages are used to calculate the CNS Fails Charge for a Member, the proposed rule change would amend the Rules to include such specific percentages. In doing so, the proposed rule change would add transparency as well as clarify NSCC's current practices with respect to the assessment and collection of this existing margin charge.

    (ii) Calculation of the CNS Fails Charge

    For a Member with CNS Fails Positions, the CNS Fails Charge is calculated by multiplying the Current Market Value for such Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions by a percentage. For a Member that is rated 1 through 4 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, the CNS Fails Charge is 5 percent of the Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions. For a Member that is rated 5 or 6 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, the CNS Fails Charge is 10 percent of the Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions. For a Member that is rated 7 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, NSCC is currently charging such Member 20 percent of the Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions—10 percent of the charge is imposed pursuant to Procedure XV, Section I.(A)(1)(f) and the remaining 10 percent of the charge is imposed pursuant to Procedure XV, Section I.(B)(1). To improve the transparency of the CNS Fails Charge in the Rules and to clarify NSCC's current practices with respect to the assessment and collection of the CNS Fails Charge, NSCC is proposing to amend the Rules to provide that, for any Member that is rated 7 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, the CNS Fails Charge would be 20 percent of the Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions. Members that are not rated by the Credit Risk Rating Matrix are not subject to the CNS Fails Charge; however, they can be placed on the Watch List as deemed necessary by NSCC to protect itself and its Members.7 Members that are placed on the Watch List are required to make additional Clearing Fund deposits when deemed necessary by NSCC from time to time.8

    7 Section 4(c) of Rule 2B (Ongoing Membership Requirements and Monitoring), supra note 3.

    8 Section I.(B)(1) of Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and Other Matters), supra note 3.

    (iii) Detailed Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    NSCC is proposing to amend Rule 1 to add a definition for CNS Fails Position. The proposed definition would provide that the term “CNS Fails Position” means either a Long Position or a Short Position that did not settle on the Settlement Date.

    NSCC is also proposing to amend Procedure XV, Section I.(A)(1)(f) to provide that a Member's contribution to the Clearing Fund shall include an amount that is calculated by multiplying the Current Market Value for such Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions by (i) 5 percent for Members rated 1 through 4 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, (ii) 10 percent for Members rated 5 or 6 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, or (iii) 20 percent for Members rated 7 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix.

    2. Statutory Basis

    NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 9 and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4), (e)(6)(i), and (e)(23)(i),10 each as promulgated under the Act, for the reasons described below.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    10 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4), (e)(6)(i), and (e)(23)(i).

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the Rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it is responsible.11 The proposed rule changes to clarify NSCC's current practices regarding the assessment and collection of the CNS Fails Charge would provide transparency in the Rules with respect to the charge. By doing so, these proposed rule changes would ensure that the Rules remain transparent, accurate and clear, which would enable all stakeholders to readily understand their respective rights and obligations regarding NSCC's clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Therefore, NSCC believes that these proposed rule changes would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act. In addition, the proposed rule changes to amend provisions in the Rules regarding the CNS Fails Charge would protect NSCC from potential losses in the event that a Member defaults. Specifically, the CNS Fails Charge is calculated and collected by NSCC from Members with CNS Fails Positions in order to mitigate the credit exposures to NSCC resulting from those positions. Mitigating NSCC's risk exposures from CNS Fails Positions would promote the safeguarding of securities and funds that are within NSCC's custody or control, consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4) under the Act requires NSCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor and manage its credit exposures to participants and those exposures arising from its payment, clearing and settlement processes.12 The CNS Fails Charge is being imposed on Members with CNS Fails Positions in order to reduce credit exposures to NSCC resulting from those positions. As proposed, it is designed to obtain from such Member financial resources commensurate with the credit exposures posed to NSCC by such Member's CNS Fails Positions. Therefore, NSCC believes that management of its credit exposures to its Members through the CNS Fails Charge is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4) under the Act.

    12 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4).

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act requires NSCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its Members by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio and market.13 When applicable, the CNS Fails Charge is a component of a Member's Required Deposit and is designed to cover NSCC's credit exposures to Members with CNS Fails Positions. As described above, the CNS Fails Charge is determined based on the amount of CNS Fails Positions in a Member's portfolio and is commensurate with the Member's default risk. Therefore, NSCC believes the coverage of its credit exposures to its Members through the CNS Fails Charge is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act.

    13 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires NSCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to publicly disclose all relevant rules and material procedures.14 The proposed rule change to clarify NSCC's current practices with respect to the assessment and collection of the CNS Fails Charge would also improve the transparency of the Rules regarding the CNS Fails Charge. As such, NSCC believes that the proposed rule change would promote disclosure of relevant rules and material procedures relating to the CNS Fails Charge and therefore is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act.

    14 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i).

    (B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change to amend the provisions in the Rules relating to the CNS Fails Charge would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.15 NSCC believes that the CNS Fails Charge is necessary for NSCC to limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by Members with CNS Fails Positions. Additionally, NSCC believes that the CNS Fails Charge is appropriate because it is imposed on Members on an individualized basis and is reasonably calculated based on the Members' default risks as well as the risks posed to NSCC by the Members' CNS Fails Positions. Therefore, NSCC believes any burden on competition imposed by the CNS Fails Charge would be necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the Act in order to limit NSCC's exposures to the risks being mitigated by such charge.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change to clarify NSCC's current practices with respect to the assessment and collection of the CNS Fails Charge would impact competition.16 The proposed rule change would increase the transparency of the Rules regarding this existing charge and codify NSCC's current practices with respect to the assessment and imposition of the charge. As such, NSCC believes that this proposed rule change would not impact Members or have any impact on competition.

    16Id.

    (C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NSCC-2017-015 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-015. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-015 and should be submitted on or before September 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.17

    17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17911 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No 34-81442; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-54] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Generic Listing Criteria Applicable to Equity Index-Linked Securities August 18, 2017. I. Introduction

    On May 4, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend the generic listing criteria applicable to Equity Index-Linked Securities.3 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 23, 2017.4 On July 6, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,5 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.6 On August 17, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the original proposal in its entirety.7 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 Equity Index-Linked Securities are securities that provide for the payment at maturity (or earlier redemption) based on the performance of an underlying index or indexes of equity securities, securities of closed-end management investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and/or Investment Company Units (“Units”). See NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80707 (May 17, 2017), 82 FR 23636.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81081, 82 FR 32218 (July 12, 2017).

    7 In Amendment No. 1 the Exchange: (1) Revised proposed NYSE Arca Rules-5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(iii) and 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(i) to provide that the index concentration limit applicable to the five highest dollar-weighted components would apply only to an index with five or more components that are not Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities (as those terms are defined below) and to provide that these securities would only be excluded from the numerator of the index concentration limit calculation; (2) modified proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(a) to specify that Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities (as those terms are defined below) also include securities listed on another national securities exchange pursuant to substantially equivalent listing rules; and (3) made a technical correction to Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(iv) to change its reference to “NYSE Arca Rule 5.3” to read “NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-O.” Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-54/nysearca201754-2227310-160780.pdf. Amendment No. 1 also reflects numbering changes effected by the recently approved merger of NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE Arca Options rules. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81419 (August 17, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2017-40).

    II. The Exchange's Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6) to exclude the following types of index components from certain generic listing requirements applicable to an index underlying Equity Index-Linked Securities: (1) Investment Company Units (“Units”); 8 (2) securities defined in Section 2 of NYSE Arca Rule 8-E (collectively with Units, “Derivative Securities Products”); 9 (3) Index-Linked Securities; and (4) securities listed on other national securities exchanges pursuant to rules that are substantially equivalent to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3), NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6), and Section 2 of NYSE Arca Rule 8-E. Specifically, the Exchange proposes the following:

    8 Units are securities that represent an interest in a registered investment company that could be organized as a unit investment trust, an open-end management investment company, or a similar entity, that holds securities comprising, or otherwise based on or representing an interest in, an index or portfolio of securities or securities in another registered investment company that holds such securities. See NYSE Arca Rule-5.2-E(j)(3).

    9 The following securities currently are included in Section 2 of NYSE Arca Rule 8-E: Portfolio Depositary Receipts (Rule 8.100-E); Trust Issued Receipts (Rule 8.200-E); Commodity-Based Trust Shares (Rule 8.201-E); Currency Trust Shares (Rule 8.202-E); Commodity Index Trust Shares (Rule 8.203-E); Commodity Futures Trust Shares (Rule-8.204-E); Partnership Units (Rule 8.300-E); Paired Trust Shares (Rule-8.400-E);Trust Units (Rule 8.500-E); Managed Fund Shares (Rule 8.600-E); and Managed Trust Securities (Rule 8.700-E).

    • Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, each underlying index must have at least ten component securities. The Exchange would modify this requirement to reflect no minimum number of index components if one or more issues of Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, component securities underlying an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities.10

    10See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(a).

    • Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, each component security must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million, except that the market value for each of the lowest dollar-weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the dollar weight of the index may be at least $50 million. The Exchange proposes to exclude Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities from those minimum market value requirements, as well as to exclude from the calculation of the aggregate dollar value of the index the market value(s) of all components that are Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities.11

    11See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(1).

    • Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the weight of the underlying index each must have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 1,000,000 shares or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months. The Exchange proposes to apply those requirements only to index components that are not Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities, and would exclude components that are Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities from the calculation of the index's weight.12

    12See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(2).

    • Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, no component security may represent more than 25% of the dollar weight of the index and the five highest dollar-weighted component securities in the index may not in the aggregate account for more than 50%, or 60% for an index consisting of fewer than 25 component securities, of the dollar weight of the index.13 The Exchange proposes to exclude Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities from these index concentration limits and would exclude Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities from the dollar value of the index for purposes of calculating the total dollar value of the index components.14

    13 Currently, these requirements must also be met whenever the index is rebalanced. See NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(i).

    14See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(3). As discussed above, the Exchange also proposes that the index concentration limit applicable to the five highest dollar-weighted components would apply only to an index with five or more components that are not Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities. See supra note 7. Further, the Exchange proposes that these proposed index concentration limits be met whenever the index is rebalanced. See proposed NYSE Arca Rule-5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(i).

    • Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, 90% of the underlying index's numerical value, and at least 80% of the total number of component securities, must meet the then current criteria for standardized option trading set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-O; except that an index will not be subject to this requirement if (1) no underlying component security represents more than 10% of the dollar weight of the index, and (2) the index has a minimum of 20 components. The Exchange proposes to apply this requirement only to index components that are not Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities and, for purposes of this requirement would exclude all components that are a Derivative Securities Product or Index-Linked Security from the calculations of the index's numerical value, total number of components, and dollar value.15

    15See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(iv).

    • Currently, on a continuous basis, component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the weight of the index each must have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 500,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $12,500,000, averaged over the last six months. The Exchange proposes to apply those requirements only to index components that are not Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities, and would exclude components that are Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities from the calculation of the index's total weight.16

    16See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(ii).

    The Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to the text of NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6).

    III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.17 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,18 which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    17 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    In support of its proposal, the Exchange notes that Derivative Securities Products are excluded from consideration when determining whether the components of Units satisfy the applicable listing criteria in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3),19 and both Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities are excluded from the applicable listing criteria for Managed Fund Shares holding equity securities in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E.20

    19See Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57751 (May 1, 2008), 73 FR 25818 (May 7, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-29) (approving amendments to the eligibility criteria for components of an index underlying Investment Company Units).

    20See Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78397 (July 22, 2016), 81 FR 49320 (July 27, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-110) (approving the adoption of generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares) (“MFS Order”).

    Specifically, the Exchange states: “both Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities are excluded from the applicable listing criteria for Managed Fund Shares holding equity securities in Commentary .01 to Rule 8.600-E.” 21 In approving the exclusion of Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities from certain generic listing requirements applicable to Managed Fund Shares, the Commission stated that such exclusions would not increase the susceptibility of Managed Fund Shares to manipulation because Index-Linked Securities and Derivative Securities Products each: (1) Have asset-exposure concentration limits and requirements promoting price transparency within their own listing standards; (2) are listed and traded on national securities exchanges; and (3) provide trading and price information and other quantitative data for investors and other market participants.22 For these same reasons, the Commission believes that excluding Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities from the same type of generic listing requirements would not increase the susceptibility of Equity Index-Linked Securities to manipulation.

    21 Amendment No. 1, supra note 7, at 9, text accompanying n.20.

    22See MFS Order, supra note 20, at 49325.

    Additionally, the Exchange represents that it has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in Index-Linked Securities in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 23 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.

    23 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-54 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-54. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-54 and should be submitted on or before September 14, 2017. V. Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. As noted above, Amendment No. 1 modified proposed NYSE Arca Rules-5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(iii) and 5.2-E(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(i) to provide that the index concentration limit applicable to the five highest dollar-weighted components would apply only to an index with five or more components that are not Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities. These provisions are consistent with Commentary .01(a)(1)(C) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, and therefore the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,24 to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

    24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    VI. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,25 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2017-54), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.

    25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    26 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.26

    Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17920 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81438; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-027] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Capital Acquisition Broker Rules 203 (Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities With Government Entities) and 458 (Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities) August 18, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on August 17, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to adopt Capital Acquisition Broker Rules 203 (Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities) and 458 (Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities) that would apply established “pay-to-play” and related rules to the activities of member firms that have elected to be governed by the Capital Acquisition Broker (“CAB”) Rules and that engage in distribution or solicitation activities for compensation with government entities on behalf of investment advisers.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose FINRA Pay-to-Play Rules

    In July 2010, the SEC adopted Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 addressing pay-to-play practices 3 by investment advisers (the “SEC Pay-to-Play Rule”).4 The SEC Pay-to-Play Rule prohibits, in part, an investment adviser and its covered associates from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any person to solicit a government entity for investment advisory services on behalf of the investment adviser unless the person is a “regulated person.” 5 A “regulated person” includes a member firm, provided that: (a) FINRA rules prohibit member firms from engaging in distribution or solicitation activities if political contributions have been made; and (b) the SEC finds, by order, that such rules impose substantially equivalent or more stringent restrictions on member firms than the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule imposes on investment advisers and that such rules are consistent with the objectives of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.6

    3 “Pay-to-play” practices typically involve a person making cash or in-kind political contributions (or soliciting or coordinating others to make such contributions) to help finance the election campaigns of state or local officials or bond ballot initiatives as a quid pro quo for the receipt of government contracts. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 16-40 (October 2016) at 9, note 1.

    4See Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3043 (July 1, 2010), 75 FR 41018 (July 14, 2010) (S7-18-09) (Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers) (“SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release”). See also Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3221 (June 22, 2011), 76 FR 42950 (July 19, 2011) (S7-36-10) (Rules Implementing Amendments to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940); Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3418 (June 8, 2012), 77 FR 35263 (June 13, 2012) (S7-18-09) (Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers; Ban on Third Party Solicitation; Extension of Compliance Date).

    5See Investment Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-5(a)(2)(i)(A), 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5(a)(2)(i)(A).

    6See Investment Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-5(f)(9), 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5(f)(9). A “regulated person” also includes SEC-registered investment advisers and SEC-registered municipal advisors, subject to specified conditions.

    Based on this regulatory framework, on August 25, 2016, the SEC approved FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580 to establish a comprehensive regime to regulate the activities of member firms that engage in distribution or solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers.7 On September 20, 2016, the SEC, by order, found that FINRA Rule 2030 imposes substantially equivalent or more stringent restrictions on member firms than the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule imposes on investment advisers and is consistent with the objectives of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.8 These rules enable member firms to continue to engage in distribution and solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers while at the same time deterring member firms from engaging in pay-to-play practices.

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78683 (August 25, 2016), 81 FR 60051 (August 31, 2016) (SR-FINRA-2015-056) (Approval Order). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76767 (December 24, 2015), 80 FR 81650 (December 30, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-056) (Proposing Release).

    8See Investment Advisers Act Release No. 4532 (September 20, 2016), 81 FR 66526 (September 28, 2016) (S7-16-16).

    In October 2016, FINRA published a Regulatory Notice announcing Commission approval of FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580.9 The Notice also announced that Rules 2030 and 4580 will become effective on August 20, 2017.

    9See FINRA Regulatory Notice 16-40 (October 2016).

    FINRA Capital Acquisition Broker Rules

    On August 18, 2016, the SEC approved 10 a separate set of FINRA rules for firms that meet the definition of a “capital acquisition broker” and that elect to be governed under this rule set. CABs are member firms that engage in a limited range of activities, essentially advising companies and private equity funds on capital raising and corporate restructuring, and acting as placement agents for sales of unregistered securities to institutional investors under limited conditions. Member firms that elect to be governed under the CAB rule set are not permitted, among other things, to carry or maintain customer accounts, handle customers' funds or securities, accept customers' trading orders, or engage in proprietary trading or market-making.

    10See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78617 (August 18, 2016), 81 FR 57948 (August 24, 2016) (SR-FINRA-2015-054) (Order Approving Rule Change as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to Adopt FINRA Capital Acquisition Broker Rules).

    The CAB Rules became effective on April 14, 2017. In order to provide new CAB applicants with lead time to apply for FINRA membership and obtain the necessary qualifications and registrations, CAB Rules 101-125 became effective on January 3, 2017.

    Addition of FINRA Pay-to-Play Rules to CAB Rulebook

    The CAB Rules subject CABs to a number of FINRA Rules, but do not expressly provide that FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580 apply to CABs. FINRA believes that the CAB Rules should be clarified to reflect that FINRA Rule 2030 and the related record-keeping requirements of FINRA Rule 4580 apply to CABs. As stated above, the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule prohibits, in part, an investment adviser and its covered associates from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any person to solicit a government entity for investment advisory services on behalf of the investment adviser unless the person is a “regulated person.” The SEC Pay-to-Play Rule defines a “regulated person” to include a member firm subject to a FINRA pay-to-play rule.

    The proposed rule change would make clear that CABs are subject to FINRA's pay-to-play rule and, therefore, that CABs, similarly to non-CAB member firms, are “regulated persons” that can engage in distribution and solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers in accordance with the SEC's Pay-to-Play Rule, while at the same time deterring CABs from engaging in pay-to-play practices.

    To make this clarification, FINRA proposes the addition of CAB Rule 203, which would provide that all capital acquisition brokers are subject to FINRA Rule 2030. CAB Rule 458 would provide that all capital acquisition brokers are subject to FINRA Rule 4580.

    Effective Date

    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be no later than 30 days following publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission approval.

    2. Statutory Basis

    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,11 which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would make clear that CABs are subject to the same regime that regulates the activities of non-CAB member firms that engage in distribution or solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers, while deterring CABs from engaging in pay-to-play practices. In the absence of this proposed rule change, under the SEC's Pay-to-Play Rule, CABs could be prohibited from receiving compensation for engaging in distribution and solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers following the effective date of FINRA Rule 2030 because the rule set for CABs does not expressly provide that FINRA Rule 2030 applies to CABs. FINRA believes that clarifying that FINRA Rule 2030 and the related record-keeping requirements of FINRA Rule 4580 apply to CABs is a more effective regulatory response to the concerns identified by the SEC regarding third-party solicitations than an outright ban on such activity. Thus, the proposed rule change is intended to make clear that CABs, similarly to non-CAB member firms, are “regulated persons” that can engage in distribution and solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers in accordance with the SEC Pay-to-Play rule, while at the same time deterring such firms from engaging in pay-to-play practices.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. While CABs have a more limited scope of permitted activities relative to other member firms, they still may engage, for example, in providing advice to municipalities either as issuer or as participant in the issuance. The proposed rule change would allow CABs to be subject to the same pay-to-play rules as other non-CAB member firms. As such, the economic impacts associated with this proposal are all contemplated in the Economic Impact Assessment accompanying the filing of FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580. In this regard, FINRA's Economic Impact Assessment in the Proposing Release for FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580 considered the impact on all FINRA member firms, including firms that at that time engaged solely in activities that were later deemed permissible for CABs.12

    12See supra note 7. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76767 (December 24, 2015), 80 FR 81650, 81656-81658 (December 30, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-056) (at the time of the Economic Impact Assessment, the SEC had not approved the separate set of rules for CABs).

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-FINRA-2017-027 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-027. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-027 and should be submitted on or before September 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13

    13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17910 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81440; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-30] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Provide for the Listing of Companies That List Without a Prior Exchange Act Registration and That Are Not Listing in Connection With an Underwritten Initial Public Offering and Related Changes to Rules 15, 104, and 123D August 18, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on June 13, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 20, 2017.4 The Commission received one comment on the proposed rule change.5 On August 3, 2017, the Commission extended the time period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to September 18, 2017.6

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 809333 (June 15, 2017), 82 FR 28200 (June 20, 2017)(“Notice”).

    5See letter from James J. Angel, Associate Professor of Finance, Georgetown University, dated July 28, 2017.

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81309 (August 3, 2017), 82 FR 37244 (August 9, 2017).

    The Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on August 16, 2017, which amended and replaced the proposed rule change.7 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, from interested persons.8

    7 The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on July 28, 2017 and withdrew Amendment No. 1 on August 16, 2017.

    8 In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange, among other things, provides that a Designated Market Maker (“DMM”) can only use a trading price in a private placement market as a reference price and to facilitate a fair and orderly opening on the first day of trading in a security being listed under proposed Footnote (E) to Section 102.01(B) of the NYSE's Listed Company Manual (“non-IPO new listing”) if the private placement market has had recent sustained history of trading prior to listing. If there is no recent sustained history of trading prior to listing in the private placement market, the proposal states that the DMM will consult with a financial advisor to the issuer of the security to establish a reference price pursuant to Exchange Rule 15 and facilitate a fair and orderly opening pursuant to Exchange Rule 104. Amendment No. 2, also amended the proposal to delete the proposed regulatory halt provision for an initial public offering so that the proposed new regulatory halt authority is only applicable to a security that is the subject of a non-IPO new listing. Amendment No 2 also adds language to make clear that the regulatory halt authority for a non-IPO new listing will be terminated when the DMM opens the security for trading. The proposed new regulatory halt will, therefore, only apply during the pre-opening period on the first day of trading on the Exchange in a non-IPO new listing.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend: (i) Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to modify the provisions relating to the qualification of companies listing without a prior Exchange Act registration; (ii) Rule 15 to add a Reference Price for when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B; (iii) Rule 104 to specify DMM requirements when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B and there has been no trading in the private market for such security; and (iv) Rule 123D to specify that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial listing on the Exchange. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend: (i) Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual to modify the provisions relating to the qualification of companies listing without a prior Exchange Act registration; (ii) Rule 15 to add a Reference Price for when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B; (iii) Rule 104 to specify DMM requirements when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.10B and there has been no trading in the private market for such security; and (iv) Rule 123D to specify that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial listing on the Exchange.9

    9 The Exchange has previously filed this proposal as SR-NYSE-2017-30. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80933 (June 15, 2017), 82 FR 28200 (June 20, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-30). This Amendment No. 2 replaces and supersedes the original filing of SR-NYSE-2017-30 in its entirety.

    Amendments to Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B

    Generally, the Exchange expects to list companies in connection with a firm commitment underwritten initial public offering (“IPO”), upon transfer from another market, or pursuant to a spin-off. Companies listing in connection with an IPO must demonstrate that they have $40 million in market value of publicly-held shares,10 while companies that are listing upon transfer from another exchange or the over-the counter market or pursuant to a spin-off must demonstrate that they have $100 million in market value of publicly-held shares.

    10 Shares held by directors, officers, or their immediate families and other concentrated holdings of 10 percent or more are excluded in calculating the number of publicly-held shares.

    Section 102.01B currently contains a provision under which the Exchange recognizes that some companies that have not previously had their common equity securities registered under the Exchange Act, but which have sold common equity securities in a private placement, may wish to list their common equity securities on the Exchange at the time of effectiveness of a registration statement filed solely for the purpose of allowing existing shareholders to sell their shares. Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B provides that the Exchange will, on a case by case basis, exercise discretion to list such companies. In exercising this discretion, Footnote (E) provides that the Exchange will determine that such company has met the $100 million aggregate market value of publicly-held shares requirement based on a combination of both (i) an independent third-party valuation (a “Valuation”) of the company and (ii) the most recent trading price for the company's common stock in a trading system for unregistered securities operated by a national securities exchange or a registered broker-dealer (a “Private Placement Market”). The Exchange will attribute a market value of publicly-held shares to the company equal to the lesser of (i) the value calculable based on the Valuation and (ii) the value calculable based on the most recent trading price in a Private Placement Market.

    Any Valuation used for purposes of Footnote (E) must be provided by an entity that has significant experience and demonstrable competence in the provision of such valuations. The Valuation must be of a recent date as of the time of the approval of the company for listing and the evaluator must have considered, among other factors, the annual financial statements required to be included in the registration statement, along with financial statements for any completed fiscal quarters subsequent to the end of the last year of audited financials included in the registration statement. The Exchange will consider any market factors or factors particular to the listing applicant that would cause concern that the value of the company had diminished since the date of the Valuation and will continue to monitor the company and the appropriateness of relying on the Valuation up to the time of listing. In particular, the Exchange will examine the trading price trends for the stock in the Private Placement Market over a period of several months prior to listing and will only rely on a Private Placement Market price if it is consistent with a sustained history over that several month period evidencing a market value in excess of the Exchange's market value requirement. The Exchange may withdraw its approval of the listing at any time prior to the listing date if it believes that the Valuation no longer accurately reflects the company's likely market value.

    While Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B provides for a company listing upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement, it does not make any provision for a company listing in connection with the effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement in the absence of an IPO or other Securities Act registration. A company is able to become an Exchange Act registrant without a concurrent public offering by filing a Form 10 (or, in the case of a foreign private issuer, a Form 20-F) with the SEC. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to list companies that wish to list immediately upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent Securities Act registration provided the applicable company meets all other listing requirements. Consequently, the Exchange proposes to amend Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B to explicitly provide that it applies to companies listing upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent Securities Act registration as well as to companies listing upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement.

    The Exchange notes that the requirement of Footnote (E) that the Exchange should rely on recent Private Placement Market trading in addition to a Valuation may cause difficulties for certain companies that are otherwise clearly qualified for listing. Some companies that are clearly large enough to be suitable for listing on the Exchange do not have their securities traded at all on a Private Placement Market prior to going public. In other cases, the Private Placement Market trading is too limited to provide a reasonable basis for reaching conclusions about a company's qualification. Consequently, the Exchange proposes to amend Footnote (E) to provide an exception to the Private Placement Market trading requirement for companies with respect to which there is a recent Valuation available indicating at least $250 million in market value of publicly-held shares. Adopting a requirement that the Valuation must be at least two-and-a-half times the $100 million requirement will give a significant degree of comfort that the market value of the company's shares will meet the standard upon commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it is unlikely that any Valuation would reach a conclusion that was incorrect to the degree necessary for a company using this provision to fail to meet the $100 million requirement upon listing, in particular because any Valuation used for this purpose must be provided by an entity that has significant experience and demonstrable competence in the provision of such valuations.

    The Exchange proposes to further amend Footnote (E) by providing that a valuation agent will not be deemed to be independent if:

    • At the time it provides such valuation, the valuation agent or any affiliated person or persons beneficially own in the aggregate as of the date of the valuation, more than 5% of the class of securities to be listed, including any right to receive any such securities exercisable within 60 days.

    • The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has provided any investment banking services to the listing applicant within the 12 months preceding the date of the valuation. For purposes of this provision, “investment banking services” includes, without limitation, acting as an underwriter in an offering for the issuer; acting as a financial adviser in a merger or acquisition; providing venture capital, equity lines of credit, PIPEs (private investment, public equity transactions), or similar investments; serving as placement agent for the issuer; or acting as a member of a selling group in a securities underwriting.

    • The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has been engaged to provide investment banking services to the listing applicant in connection with the proposed listing or any related financings or other related transactions.

    The Exchange believes that this proposed new requirement will provide a significant additional guarantee of the independence of any entity providing a Valuation for purposes of Footnote (E).

    The proposed amendments would enable the Exchange to compete for listings of companies that the Exchange believes would be able to list on the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) but would not be able to list on the NYSE under its current rules. Nasdaq's initial listing rules do not explicitly address how Nasdaq determines compliance with its initial listing market capitalization requirements by private companies seeking to list upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement or Exchange Act registration without a concurrent underwritten public offering. However, over an extended period of time Nasdaq has listed a number of previously private companies in conjunction with the effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement without an underwritten offering. In light of this precedent and the absence of any Nasdaq rule provision explicitly limiting the ability of a company to qualify for listing without a public offering or prior public market price, the Exchange believes that Nasdaq would take the position that it could also list a previously private company upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent public offering. Therefore, the Exchange believes that its proposed amendment would permit it to compete on equal terms with Nasdaq for the listing of companies seeking to list in either of these circumstances.

    The Exchange believes that it is important to have a transparent and consistent approach to determining compliance with applicable market capitalization requirements by previously private companies seeking to list without a public offering and that Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B as amended would provide such a mechanism. In the absence of the proposed amendments, companies listing upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement would have no means of listing on the NYSE, while the Exchange believes that Nasdaq would interpret its own rules as enabling it to list a company under those circumstances. As such, the proposed amendment would address a significant competitive disadvantage faced by the NYSE, while also providing certain companies with an alternative listing venue where none currently exists.

    Proposed Amendments to NYSE Rules

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the opening of trading to specify procedures for the opening trade on the day of initial listing of a company that lists under the amended provisions of Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that did not have recent sustained history of trading in a Private Placement Market before listing on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes that the issuer must retain a financial advisor to provide specified functions, as described below.

    Rule 15

    Rule 15(b) provides that a designated market maker (“DMM”) will publish a pre-opening indication either (i) before a security opens if the opening transaction on the Exchange is anticipated to be at a price that represents a change of more than the “Applicable Price Range,” as specified in Rule 15(d), from a specified “Reference Price,” as specified in Rule 15(c), or (ii) if a security has not opened by 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Rule 15(c)(1) specifies the Reference Price for a security other than an American Depository Receipt, which would be either (A) the security's last reported sale price on the Exchange; (B) the security's offering price in the case of an IPO; or (C) the security's last reported sale price on the securities market from which the security is being transferred to the Exchange, on the security's first day of trading on the Exchange.

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 15(c)(1) to add new sub-paragraph (D) to specify the Reference Price for a security that is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual. As proposed, if such security has had recent sustained trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing, the Reference Price in such scenario would be the most recent transaction price in that market or, if none, a price determined by the Exchange in consultation with a financial advisor to the issuer of such security.

    Rule 104

    Rule 104(a)(2) provides that the DMM has a responsibility for facilitating openings and reopenings for each of the securities in which the DMM is registered as required under Exchange rules, which includes supplying liquidity as needed.11 The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(a)(2) to specify the role of a financial adviser to an issuer that is listing under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that has not had recent sustained history of trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing.

    11 Rules 15, 115A, and 123D specify the procedures for opening securities on the Exchange.

    As described above, an issuer that seeks to list under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B and that does not have any recent Private Market Placement trading would be required to have a financial advisor in connection with such listing. The Exchange proposes that the DMM would be required to consult with such financial advisor when facilitating the open of trading of the first day of trading of such listing. This requirement is based in part on Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9), which requires that a new listing on Nasdaq that is not an IPO have a financial advisor willing to perform the functions performed by an underwriter in connection with pricing an IPO on Nasdaq.12

    12 Nasdaq operates an automated IPO opening process, which is described in Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(8). In contrast to the NYSE, which has DMMs to facilitate the opening of trading, for an IPO, Nasdaq requires that the underwriter of the IPO perform specified functions, including (i) notifying Nasdaq that the security is ready to trade; (ii) determining whether an IPO should be postponed; and (iii) selecting price bands for purposes of applying Nasdaq's automated price validation test. Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9) requires that if a new listing does not have an underwriter, the issuer must have a financial advisor willing to perform the above-described functions. The functions that the underwriter/financial advisor performs on Nasdaq as described in Rule 4120(c)(8) are not applicable to the Exchange. The Exchange opening process does not have a concept of “price bands” because, as described in Rule 115A, market orders and limit orders priced better than the opening price are guaranteed to participate in the IPO opening. In addition, because the Exchange does not conduct an automated opening process, the DMM functions as an independent financial expert responsible for facilitating the opening of trading to ensure a fair and orderly opening.

    The Exchange believes that such a financial advisor would have an understanding of the status of ownership of outstanding shares in the company and would have been working with the issuer to identify a market for the securities upon listing. Such financial advisor would be able to provide input to the DMM regarding expectations of where such a new listing should be priced, based on pre-listing selling and buying interest and other factors that would not be available to the DMM through other sources.

    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(a)(3) to provide that when facilitating the opening on the first day of trading of a security that is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that has not had recent sustained history of trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing, the DMM would be required to consult with a financial advisor to the issuer of such security in order to effect a fair and orderly opening of such security.

    Notwithstanding the proposed obligation to consult with the financial advisor, the DMM would remain responsible for facilitating the opening of trading of such security, and the opening of such security must take into consideration the buy and sell orders available on the Exchange's book in connection. Accordingly, just as a DMM is not bound by an offering price in an IPO, and will open such a security at a price dictated by the buying and selling interest entered on the Exchange in that security, a DMM would not be bound by the input he or she receives from the financial advisor.

    Rule 123D

    The Exchange further proposes to amend its rules to provide authority to declare a regulatory halt for a new listing that is not the subject of an IPO. As proposed, Rule 123D(d) would provide that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial pricing on the Exchange of a security that has not been listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the over-the-counter market pursuant to FINRA Form 211 (“OTC market”) immediately prior to the initial pricing.13 Proposed Rule 123D(d) would further provide that this regulatory halt would be terminated when the DMM opens the security.

    13 The Exchange proposes to re-number current Rule 123D(d) as Rule 123D(e).

    Proposed Rule 123D(d) is based in part on Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9), which provides that the process for halting and initial pricing of a security that is the subject of an IPO on Nasdaq is also available for the initial pricing of any other security that has not been listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the OTC market immediately prior to the initial public offering, provided that a broker-dealer serving in the role of financial advisor to the issuer of the securities being listed is willing to perform the functions under Rule 4120(c)(7)(B) that are performed by an underwriter with respect to an initial public offering.14 Proposed Rule 123D(d) is also based in part on Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(8)(A), which provides that such halt condition shall be terminated when the security is released for trading on Nasdaq.

    14 The Exchange believes that the correct cross reference should be to Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(8)(B). Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(8) specifies Nasdaq procedures for how it conducts its crossing trade following a trading halt declared for an IPO on Nasdaq, including the role of an underwriter in determining when an IPO may be released for trading.

    Proposed Rule 123D(d) would provide authority for the Exchange to declare a regulatory halt for a security that is having its initial listing on the Exchange, is not an IPO, and has not been listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the OTC market immediately prior to the initial pricing (“non-IPO listing”). The Exchange does not propose to include the last clause of Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9) in proposed Rule 123D(d). Rather, as described above, the Exchange proposes to address the role of a financial advisor to an issuer in specified circumstances in Rule 104(a)(3).

    The Exchange believes that it would be consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest for the Exchange, as a primary listing exchange, to have the authority to declare a regulatory halt for a security that is the subject of a non-IPO listing because it would ensure that a new listing that is not the subject of an IPO could not be traded before the security opens on the Exchange.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 15 of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,16 in particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in clearing and settling transactions in securities, thereby facilitating such transactions.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The proposal to permit companies listing upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent public offering or Securities Act registration is designed to protect investors and the public interest, because such companies will be required to meet all of the same quantitative requirements met by other listing applicants. The proposal to amend Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual to allow companies to avail themselves of that provision without any reliance on Private Placement Market trading is designed to protect investors and the public interest because any company relying solely on a valuation to demonstrate compliance with the market value of publicly-held shares requirement will be required to demonstrate a market value of publicly-held shares of $250 million, rather than the $100 million that is generally applicable. The proposal to include a definition of valuation agent independence in Footnote (E) is consistent with the protection of investors, as it ensures that any entity providing a Valuation for purposes of Footnote (E) will have a significant level of independence from the listing applicant.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rules 15 and 104 would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule changes would specify requirements relating to the opening of a trading of a security that would be listed under the proposed amended text of Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual. The proposed amendments to Exchange rules are designed to provide DMMs with information to assist them in meeting their obligations to open a new listing under the amended provisions of the Manual. Rule 15 would be amended to specify the Reference Price that the DMM would use for purposes of determining whether a pre-opening indication is required and Rule 104 would be amended to provide that the DMM will consult with a financial advisor when facilitating the opening of a security that is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that has not had recent sustained history of trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 123D to provide authority to declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of a non-IPO listing would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide the Exchange with authority to halt trading across all markets for a security that has not previously listed on the Exchange, but for which a regulatory halt would promote fair and orderly markets. The proposed rule change would also align halt rule authority among primary listing exchanges. The Exchange further believes that having the authority to declare a regulatory halt for a security that is the subject of a non-IPO listing is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and would promote fair and orderly markets by helping to protect against volatility in pricing and initial trading of unseasoned securities.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendment to Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Exchange Act. Rather, the proposed rule change will increase competition for new listings by enabling companies to list that meet all quantitative requirements but are currently unable to list because of the methodology required by the current rules to demonstrate their compliance.

    As noted above, Nasdaq's listing rules do not include explicit limitations applicable to the listing of companies in these circumstances. Additionally, Nasdaq has listed previously private companies upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement without a concurrent underwritten offering on several occasions in the past. In light of this precedent and the absence of any Nasdaq rule provision explicitly limiting the ability of a company to qualify for listing without a public offering or prior public market price, the Exchange believes that Nasdaq would take the position that it could also list a previously private company upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent public offering. As such, the proposed amendment to Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual would increase competition by enabling the NYSE to compete with Nasdaq for these listings.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments to its Rule Book will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the changes are not related to competition, but rather are designed to promote fair and orderly markets in a manner that is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed changes do not impact the ability of any market participant or trading venue to compete.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2017-30 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-30. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-30 and should be submitted on or before September 14, 2017.

    17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.17

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17922 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81435/August 18, 2017] Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Order Scheduling Filing of Statements on Review in the Matter of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. for an Order Granting the Approval of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Acquisition of CHX Holdings, Inc. by North America Casin Holdings, Inc. (File No. SR-CHX-2016-20)

    On December 2, 2016, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change in connection with the acquisition of CHX Holdings, Inc. by North America Casin Holdings, Inc. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 12, 2016.3 On January 12, 2017, proceedings were instituted under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act 4 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.5 On June 6, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,6 a longer period was designated for Commission action on proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.7 On August 7, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.8 On August 9, 2017, the Division of Trading and Markets, for the Commission pursuant to delegated authority,9 approved the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.10

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79474 (December 6, 2016), 81 FR 89543.

    4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79781, 82 FR 6669 (January 19, 2017).

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80864, 82 FR 26966 (June 12, 2017).

    8See letter from Albert J. Kim, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, CHX, dated August 8, 2017, available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-chx-2016-20/chx201620-2198847-160378.pdf.

    9 17 CFR 200.30 3(a)(12).

    10See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81366, 82 FR 38734 (August 15, 2017).

    Pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 431,11 the Commission is reviewing the delegated action and the August 9, 2017 order is stayed.

    11 17 CFR 201.431.

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 431, that by September 17, 2017, any party or other person may file any additional statement.

    It is further ordered that the August 9, 2017 order approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (File No. SR-CHX-2016-20), shall remain stayed pending further order of the Commission.

    By the Commission.

    Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17921 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81436; File No. SR-GEMX-2017-38] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Quoting at the Opening August 18, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on August 17, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (“GEMX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX Rule 701, entitled “Opening.”

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this rule change is to amend GEMX Rule 701, “Opening” to specifically amend opening obligations for Primary Market Makers or “PMMs.” The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is similar to a Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX”) rule.3

    3See MRX Rule 701.

    Today, GEMX Rule 701(c)(3) states that the PMM assigned in a particular equity option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index. The PMM assigned in a particular U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute after the announced market opening.

    First, the Exchange proposes to add the words “or index” to further clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options. The Exchange proposes this addition to further clarify the requirement in Rule 701(c)(3) clearly applies to equity and index options.

    Second, the Exchange proposes to modify the PMM's current obligation to enter Valid Width Quotes not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index for all assigned options, or in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option after the announced market opening. The Exchange believes that the current requirement is very burdensome and instead proposes to add “in 90% of their assigned series” to require a PMM to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in 90% of their assigned series, or in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute after the announced market opening.

    Further, the Exchange proposes to require PMMs to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price, in the underlying index or, with respect to a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option, following the announced market opening. The Exchange's proposal is intended to account for market conditions which may prevent a PMM from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the PMM's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the PMM to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange's surveillance staff would monitor to ensure that PMMs are complying with these requirements during the Opening Process.

    Today, the Opening Process for an options series will be conducted on or after 9:30 a.m. if the system has received, within two minutes (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) of the opening trade or quote on the market for the underlying security in the case of equity options or, in the case of index options, within two minutes of the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site), or within two minutes of market opening for the underlying currency in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) the PMM's Valid Width Quote, the Valid Width Quotes of two Competitive Maker [sic] Makers (“CMMs”) or if neither the PMM's Valid Width Quote nor the Valid Width Quote of two CMMs have been submitted within such timeframe, if one CMM has submitted a Valid Width Quote.4

    4See Rule 701(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    Implementation

    The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on September 29, 2017.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,5 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,6 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest for the reasons stated below.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange's first proposal at Rule 701(c)(3) to clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options will make clear the applicability of the PMM's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes. This proposed amendment is non-substantive and is intended to add clarity to the rules.

    The second proposal to amend a PMM's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes during the Opening Process is consistent with the Act because the 90% requirement to provide a Valid Width Quote in a series to which the PMM is assigned will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. PMMs would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor PMMs to ensure that they promptly provided a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of the series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a PMM to experience circumstances where opening 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening, is not feasible.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% Valid Width Quoting obligation, not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening, along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining 10% of their assigned series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner. The Exchange's proposal accounts for market conditions which may prevent a PMM from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the PMM's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the PMM to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange believes that the time frame for PMMs to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening will ensure liquidity on GEMX during the Opening Process. The Exchange desires to encourage PMMs to continue to make markets on GEMX at the Opening. The Exchange believes that requiring PMMs to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned options not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining 10% will enhance the market making functions for PMMs and serve to maintain a fair and orderly market thereby promoting the protection of investors and the public interest.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not change the intense competition that exists among the options markets for options business including on the opening. Nor does the Exchange believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition; the Opening Process involves many types of participants and interest.

    The Exchange's proposal to require a PMM to enter a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute time following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening and promptly enter a Valid Width quote for the remaining 10% their assigned series does not create an undue burden on competition. The proposal will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. PMMs would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series which were not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor PMMs to ensure that they promptly entered a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of their assigned series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a PMM to experience circumstances where entering a Valid Width Quote for 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options within one minute after the announced market opening is not feasible. The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% obligation to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening for the underlying security along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 7 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.8

    7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-GEMX-2017-38 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2017-38. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2017-38 and should be submitted on or before September 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.9

    9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17908 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81434; File No. SR-ISE-2017-78] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Quoting at the Opening August 18, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on August 17, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 701, entitled “Opening.”

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this rule change is to amend ISE Rule 701, “Opening” to specifically amend opening obligations for Primary Market Makers or “PMMs.” The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is similar to a Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX”) rule.3

    3See MRX Rule 701.

    Today, ISE Rule 701(c)(3) states that the PMM assigned in a particular equity option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index. The PMM assigned in a particular U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute after the announced market opening.

    First, the Exchange proposes to add the words “or index” to further clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options. The Exchange proposes this addition to further clarify the requirement in Rule 701(c)(3) clearly applies to equity and index options.

    Second, the Exchange proposes to modify the PMM's current obligation to enter Valid Width Quotes not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index for all assigned options, or in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option after the announced market opening. The Exchange believes that the current requirement is very burdensome and instead proposes to add “in 90% of their assigned series” to require a PMM to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in 90% of their assigned series, or in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option in 90% of their assigned series not late [sic] than one minute after the announced market opening.

    Further, the Exchange proposes to require PMMs to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index, or with respect to a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option, following the announced market opening. The Exchange's proposal is intended to account for market conditions which may prevent a PMM from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the PMM's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the PMM to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange's surveillance staff would monitor to ensure that PMMs are complying with these requirements during the Opening Process.

    Today, the Opening Process for an options series will be conducted on or after 9:30 a.m. if the system has received, within two minutes (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) of the opening trade or quote on the market for the underlying security in the case of equity options or, in the case of index options, within two minutes of the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site), or within two minutes of market opening for the underlying currency in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) the PMM's Valid Width Quote, the Valid Width Quotes of two Competitive Market Makers (“CMMs”) or if neither the PMM's Valid Width Quote nor the Valid Width Quote of two CMM's have been submitted within such timeframe, if one CMM has submitted a Valid Width Quote.4

    4See proposed Rule 701(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    Implementation

    The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on September 29, 2017.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,5 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,6 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest for the reasons stated below.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange's first proposal at Rule 701(c)(3) to clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options will make clear the applicability of the PMM's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes. This proposed amendment is non-substantive and is intended to add clarity to the rules.

    The second proposal to amend a PMM's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes during the Opening Process is consistent with the Act because the 90% requirement to provide a Valid Width Quote in a series to which the PMM is assigned will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. PMMs would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor PMMs to ensure that they promptly provided a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of the series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a PMM to experience circumstances where opening 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening is not feasible.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% Valid Width Quoting obligation, not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening, along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining 10% of their assigned series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner. The Exchange's proposal accounts for market conditions which may prevent a PMM from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the PMM's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the PMM to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange believes that the time frame for PMMs to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening will ensure liquidity on ISE during the Opening Process. The Exchange desires to encourage PMMs to continue to make markets on ISE at the Opening. The Exchange believes that requiring PMMs to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned options not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining 10% will enhance the market making functions for PMMs and serve to maintain a fair and orderly market thereby promoting the protection of investors and the public interest.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not change the intense competition that exists among the options markets for options business including on the opening. Nor does the Exchange believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition; the Opening Process involves many types of participants and interest.

    The Exchange's proposal to require a PMM to enter a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute time following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening and promptly enter a Valid Width quote for the remaining 10% their assigned series does not create an undue burden on competition. The proposal will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. PMMs would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series which were not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor PMMs to ensure that they promptly entered a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of their assigned series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a PMM to experience circumstances where entering a Valid Width Quote for 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options within one minute after the announced market opening is not feasible. The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% obligation to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening for the underlying security along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 7 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.8

    7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-ISE-2017-78 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-78. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street N., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-78 and should be submitted on or before September 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.9

    9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17907 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81431; File No. SR-GEMX-2017-39] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Create the Market Access and Routing Subsidy Program August 18, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on August 9, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (“GEMX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to create a subsidy program, the Market Access and Routing Subsidy (“MARS”), for GEMX Members that provide certain order routing functionalities 3 to other GEMX Members and/or use such functionalities themselves.

    3 The order routing functionalities permit a GEMX Member to provide access and connectivity to other Members as well utilize such access for themselves. The Exchange notes that under this arrangement it will be possible for one GEMX Member to be eligible for payments under MARS, while another GEMX Member might potentially be liable for transaction charges associated with the execution of the order, because those orders were delivered to the Exchange through a GEMX Member's connection to the Exchange and that Member qualified for the MARS Payment.

    Consider the following example: Both Members A and B are GEMX Members but A does not utilize its own connections to route orders to the Exchange, and instead utilizes B's connections. Under this program, B will be eligible for the MARS Payment while A is liable for any transaction charges resulting from the execution of orders that originate from A, arrive at the Exchange via B's connectivity, and subsequently execute and clear at The Options Clearing Corporation or “OCC,” where A is the valid executing clearing Member or give-up on the transaction. Similarly, where B utilizes its own connections to execute transactions, B will be eligible for the MARS Payment, but would also be liable for any transaction resulting from the execution of orders that originate from B, arrive at the Exchange via B's connectivity, and subsequently execute and clear at OCC, where B is the valid executing clearing Member or give-up on the transaction.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    GEMX proposes a new subsidy program, MARS, which would pay a subsidy to GEMX Members that provide certain order routing functionalities to other GEMX Members and/or use such functionalities themselves. Generally, under MARS, GEMX proposes to make payments to participating GEMX Members to subsidize their costs of providing routing services to route orders to GEMX. The Exchange believes that MARS will attract higher volumes of equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange from non-GEMX market participants as well as GEMX Members.

    MARS System Eligibility

    To qualify for MARS, a GEMX Member's order routing functionality would be required to meet certain criteria. Specifically the Member's routing system (hereinafter “System”) would be required to: (1) Enable the electronic routing of orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including GEMX; (2) provide current consolidated market data from the U.S. options exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with GEMX's API to access current GEMX match engine functionality. The Member's System would also need to cause GEMX to be one of the top four default destination exchanges for (a) individually executed marketable orders if GEMX is at the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”), regardless of size or time or (b) orders that establish a new NBBO on GEMX's Order Book, but allow any user to manually override GEMX as the default destination on an order-by-order basis.

    The Exchange would require GEMX Members desiring to participate in MARS 4 to complete a form, in a manner prescribed by the Exchange, and reaffirm their information on a quarterly basis to the Exchange. Any GEMX Member would be permitted to apply for MARS, provided the above-referenced requirements are met, including a robust and reliable System. The Member would be solely responsible for implementing and operating its System.

    4 If a GEMX Member desires to qualify for MARS, that Member must submit an application and certify to the System Eligibility requirements for the entire time period in which the Member will be eligible for MARS Rebates. A GEMX Member may apply anytime during the month in which the GEMX Member desires to participant in MARS and would be eligible for the entire month, provided the GEMX Member certified System Eligibility for that entire month. For example, a GEMX Member submitting an application on the 15th of the month, would have to certify System Eligibility for that entire month. A form must be submitted no later than the last business day of the month in which the GEMX Member desires to participate in MARS. The application will require the GEMX Member to identify the GEMX Member seeking the MARS Payment and must list, among other things, the connections utilized by the GEMX Member to provide Exchange access to other GEMX Members and/or itself. MARS Payments would be made one month in arrears (i.e., a MARS Payment earned for activity in September would be paid to the qualifying GEMX Member in October), as is the case with all other transactional payments and assessments made by the Exchange.

    MARS Eligible Contracts

    A MARS Payment would be made to GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts daily in a month, which were executed on GEMX. For the purpose of qualifying for the MARS Payment, Eligible Contracts would include Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FARMM) 5 , Firm Proprietary 6 /Broker-Dealer 7 and Professional Customer 8 Orders that are executed. Eligible Contracts do not include qualified contingent cross or “QCC” Orders 9 or Price Improvement Mechanism or “PIM” Orders.10

    5 A “Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker” is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, registered in the same options class on another options exchange.

    6 A “Firm Proprietary” order is an order submitted by a Member for its own proprietary account.

    7 A “Broker-Dealer” order is an order submitted by a Member for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.

    8 A “Professional Customer” is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.

    9 A QCC Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or sell at least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in Supplementary Material .01 below, coupled with a contra-side order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts. See Rule 715(j).

    10 Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”) is the Exchange's price improvement mechanism for crossing transactions. See Rule 723.

    GEMX Members using an order routing functionality provided by another Member or its own functionality will continue to be required to comply with best execution obligations. Specifically, just as with any Priority Customer 11 order and any other routing functionality, a GEMX Member will continue to have an obligation to consider the availability of price improvement at various markets and whether routing a Priority Customer order through a functionality that incorporates the features described above would allow for access to such opportunities if readily available. Moreover, a GEMX Member would need to conduct best execution evaluations on a regular basis, at a minimum quarterly, that include its use of any router incorporating the features described above.

    11 “Priority Customer” is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s), as defined in GEMX Rule 100(a)(37A). Unless otherwise noted, the term “Priority Customer” includes “Retail.” A “Retail” order is a Priority Customer order that originates from a natural person, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.

    MARS Payment

    GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts in a month would be paid the following per contract rebates:

    Tiers Average daily
  • volume (“ADV”)
  • MARS payment
    1 10,000 $0.07 2 15,000 0.10 3 20,000 0.13

    The specified MARS Payment will be paid on all executed Eligible Contracts that add liquidity, which are routed to GEMX through a participating GEMX Member's System and meet the requisite Eligible Contracts ADV. No payment will be made with respect to orders that are routed to GEMX, but not executed. This three-tiered proposal is intended to encourage GEMX Members to execute the maximum number of contracts to achieve the highest rebate.

    No payment will be made with respect to orders that are routed to GEMX, but not executed.12 Further, a GEMX Member would not be entitled to receive any other revenue 13 for the use of its System specifically with respect to orders routed to GEMX.

    12 A GEMX Member will not be entitled to receive any other revenue for the use of its System specifically with respect to orders routed to GEMX.

    13 This requirement would not prevent the Member from charging fees (for example, a flat monthly fee) for the general use of its System. Nor would it prevent the Member from charging fees or commissions in accordance with its general practices with respect to transactions effected through its System.

    The Exchange proposes to add the MARS to Section II as Part B of the Fee Schedule, entitled “Market Access and Routing Subsidy (“MARS”).” Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the Table of Content to include the new section.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed MARS program is reasonable because it is designed to attract higher volumes of equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange, which will benefit all GEMX Members by offering greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed subsidy offered by MARS is both equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying GEMX Member that offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilizes such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all Eligible Contracts.

    MARS System Eligibility

    The Exchange believes that requiring GEMX Members to maintain their Systems according to the various requirements set forth by the Exchange in order to qualify for the proposed MARS program is reasonable because the Exchange seeks to encourage market participants to send higher volum