Federal Register Vol. 82, No.165,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 165 (August 28, 2017)

Page Range40667-40941
FR Document

82_FR_165
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 40745 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 40745 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 40667 - Continuation of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of ColombiaPDF
82 FR 40808 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 40793 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 40742 - Definition of “Waters of the United States”-Schedule of Public MeetingsPDF
82 FR 40762 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 40796 - Foreign Endangered Species and Marine Mammals Issuance of PermitsPDF
82 FR 40810 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
82 FR 40833 - Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 40786 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determinations Concerning Certain Pharmaceutical ProductsPDF
82 FR 40669 - Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Brown County, Wisconsin, and Forsyth and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina, to Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreasPDF
82 FR 40783 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Country of Origin of Tablet Computers for Health Mobile and Hub PlatformsPDF
82 FR 40757 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 40780 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokePDF
82 FR 40776 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 40781 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 40776 - Office of the Director; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
82 FR 40776 - Proposed Collection: 60-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance To Support the Safe to Sleep® Campaign at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)PDF
82 FR 40778 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (NICHD)PDF
82 FR 40826 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: NEA/AC Performance Reporting System (ACPRS) and State Assistance Management System (SAMS) Domestic Results Monitoring ModulePDF
82 FR 40752 - National Estuarine Research Reserve SystemPDF
82 FR 40750 - Evaluation of National Estuarine Research ReservePDF
82 FR 40759 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 40799 - Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NYPDF
82 FR 40803 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TNPDF
82 FR 40801 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZPDF
82 FR 40802 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, Fort Worth, TXPDF
82 FR 40800 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, COPDF
82 FR 40828 - Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act Correlation StudyPDF
82 FR 40772 - Notice of Intent To Establish the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force and Request for Nominations for Task Force MembersPDF
82 FR 40797 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment To Reconsider the January 19, 2017, Record of Decision Approving Segments 8 and 9 for the Gateway West Transmission Line Project, IdahoPDF
82 FR 40805 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-OpenDaylight Project, Inc.PDF
82 FR 40753 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 40805 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ODVA, INC.PDF
82 FR 40806 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Telemanagement ForumPDF
82 FR 40805 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Hedge IVPDF
82 FR 40827 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 40827 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 40793 - Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock Assessment Report for the Southern Sea Otter in CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 40744 - Reopening of Nomination Period for Membership on the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for FoodsPDF
82 FR 40746 - Biodiesel From the Republic of Indonesia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
82 FR 40748 - Biodiesel From Argentina: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in PartPDF
82 FR 40735 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 40770 - Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 40700 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, VAPDF
82 FR 40832 - Agency Information Collection Activity: CHAMP VA Benefits-Application, Claim, Other Health Insurance & Potential LiabilityPDF
82 FR 40831 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Regulation for Submission of EvidencePDF
82 FR 40720 - International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 2017 Commercial Pacific Bluefin Tuna Fishery Closure in the Eastern Pacific OceanPDF
82 FR 40768 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10485-Bank of Wausau, Wausau, WisconsinPDF
82 FR 40767 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10341-Peoples State Bank, Hamtramck, MichiganPDF
82 FR 40766 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10268-Sterling Bank, Lantana, FloridaPDF
82 FR 40767 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10249-Washington First Intl Bank Seattle, WashingtonPDF
82 FR 40766 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10178-American Marine Bank, Bainbridge Island, WashingtonPDF
82 FR 40768 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10111-Mainstreet Bank, Forest Lake, MinnesotaPDF
82 FR 40761 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 40762 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 40755 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 40809 - Information Collection: NRC Form 483, Registration Certificate-In VitroPDF
82 FR 40751 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitPDF
82 FR 40699 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, New York, NYPDF
82 FR 40808 - Information Collection: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive WastePDF
82 FR 40804 - Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation Based on a Settlement Agreement; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
82 FR 40772 - Meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human ServicesPDF
82 FR 40698 - Special Local Regulation; Olympia Harbor Days Tug Boat Races, Budd Inlet, WAPDF
82 FR 40775 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
82 FR 40782 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 40807 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for Permanent Employment Certification, Extension With Nonsubstantive Changes of Currently Approved CollectionPDF
82 FR 40681 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 40771 - Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 40825 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of NebraskaPDF
82 FR 40811 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 40812 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 11.6, Definitions, 11.8, Order Types, and 11.10, Order ExecutionPDF
82 FR 40823 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.8, Order Types, To Permit Midpoint Discretionary Orders To Be Non-DisplayedPDF
82 FR 40816 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to List and Trade the Shares of the U.S. Equity Cumulative Dividends Fund-Series 2027 and the U.S. Equity Ex-Dividend Fund-Series 2027 Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02PDF
82 FR 40779 - Office of the Secretary Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 40779 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 40775 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 40780 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 40781 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 40777 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 40774 - Agency Information Collection Request. 30-Day Public Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 40695 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; West Plains, MOPDF
82 FR 40697 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Pauls Valley, OKPDF
82 FR 40766 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10509-Northern Star Bank, Mankato, MinnesotaPDF
82 FR 40768 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10506-NBRS Financial, Rising Sun, MarylandPDF
82 FR 40767 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10410-Mid City Bank, Inc., Omaha, NebraskaPDF
82 FR 40768 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10409-All American Bank, Des Plaines, IllinoisPDF
82 FR 40769 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10301-First Suburban National Bank, Maywood, IllinoisPDF
82 FR 40767 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10258-Mainstreet Savings Bank, FSB, Hastings, MichiganPDF
82 FR 40692 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oskaloosa, IAPDF
82 FR 40737 - Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-56 and V-209 in the Vicinity of Kewanee, ALPDF
82 FR 40769 - Information Collection; Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction ContractsPDF
82 FR 40718 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation of the Knoxville 2006 24-hour PM2.5PDF
82 FR 40701 - Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Revisions to Jefferson County Emissions Monitoring and ReportingPDF
82 FR 40715 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Approval of an Alternative Volatile Organic Compound Emission StandardPDF
82 FR 40743 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Approval of an Alternative Volatile Organic Compound Emission StandardPDF
82 FR 40700 - Loan Guaranty: Loans To Purchase Manufactured Homes; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 40721 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus AmendmentPDF
82 FR 40826 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Office of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and Contact DisputesPDF
82 FR 40740 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Twin Bridges, MTPDF
82 FR 40696 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mason, MIPDF
82 FR 40694 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Arkadelphia, ARPDF
82 FR 40739 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Madras, ORPDF
82 FR 40710 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Permits, Approvals, and RegistrationsPDF
82 FR 40703 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Major New Source ReviewPDF
82 FR 40712 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; AK: Adoption Updates and Rule RevisionsPDF
82 FR 40746 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 40672 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 40686 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 40688 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) AirplanesPDF
82 FR 40690 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 40683 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 40670 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 40836 - Clean Water Act Methods Update Rule for the Analysis of EffluentPDF
82 FR 40675 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF

Issue

82 165 Monday, August 28, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Cooperative Research Group on Hedge IV, 40805 2017-18173 ODVA, Inc., 40805 2017-18176 OpenDaylight Project, Inc., 40805-40806 2017-18179 Telemanagement Forum, 40806-40807 2017-18175 Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40745-40746 2017-18309 2017-18310 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Hutchinson River, New York, NY, 40699-40700 2017-18145 Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, VA, 40700 2017-18160 Special Local Regulations: Olympia Harbor Days Tug Boat Races, Budd Inlet, WA, 40698-40699 2017-18138 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements under Services and Construction Contracts, 40769-40770 2017-18105 Arms Sales, 40753-40761 2017-18148 2017-18177 2017-18191 2017-18201
Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Petitions, 40746 2017-17616 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Permanent Employment Certification, 40807-40808 2017-18135 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Engineers Engineers Corps PROPOSED RULES Definition of Waters of the United States: Public Meetings, 40742-40743 2017-18214 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alaska; Adoption Updates and Rule Revisions, 40712-40715 2017-17861 Kentucky; Revisions to Jefferson County Emissions Monitoring and Reporting, 40701-40703 2017-18087 Maryland; Permits, Approvals, and Registrations, 40710-40712 2017-17865 Maryland; Approval of an Alternative Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard, 40715-40717 2017-18086 Tennessee; Redesignation of Knoxville 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 40718-40720 2017-18088 Virginia; Major New Source Review, 40703-40709 2017-17862 Clean Water Act Methods Update Rule for Analysis of Effluent, 40836-40941 2017-17271 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maryland; Approval of an Alternative Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard, 40743 2017-18085 Definition of Waters of the United States: Public Meetings, 40742-40743 2017-18214 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 40670-40672, 40675-40681, 40683-40686 2017-16860 2017-17536 2017-17537 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 40686-40688, 40690-40692 2017-17588 2017-17590 Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines, 40681-40683 2017-18133 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes, 40688-40690 2017-17589 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 40672-40675 2017-17591 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Arkadelphia, AR, 40694-40695 2017-17882 Mason, MI, 40696-40697 2017-17886 Oskaloosa, IA, 40692-40694 2017-18107 Pauls Valley, OK, 40697-40698 2017-18114 West Plains, MO, 40695-40696 2017-18115 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 40735-40737 2017-18164 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Madras, OR, 40739-40740 2017-17878 Twin Bridges, MT, 40740-40741 2017-17988 VOR Federal Airways; Amendments: V-56 and V-209; Vicinity of Kewanee, AL, 40737-40738 2017-18106 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and Contact Disputes, 40826-40827 2017-18011 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40762-40766 2017-18210 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: All American Bank, Des Plaines, IL, 40768 2017-18110 American Marine Bank, Bainbridge Island, WA, 40766 2017-18152 Bank of Wausau, Wausau, WI, 40768-40769 2017-18156 First Suburban National Bank, Maywood, IL, 40769 2017-18109 Mainstreet Bank, Forest Lake, MN, 40768 2017-18151 Mainstreet Savings Bank, FSB, Hastings, MI, 40767-40768 2017-18108 Mid City Bank, Inc., Omaha, NE, 40767 2017-18111 NBRS Financial, Rising Sun, MD, 40768 2017-18112 Northern Star Bank, Mankato, MN, 40766-40767 2017-18113 Peoples State Bank, Hamtramck, MI, 40767 2017-18155 Sterling Bank, Lantana, FL, 40766 2017-18154 Washington First Intl Bank, Seattle, WA, 40767 2017-18153 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 40761-40762 2017-18149 2017-18150 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40827 2017-18171 Final Federal Agency Actions: Proposed Highway in California, 40827-40828 2017-18170 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Requests for Comments: Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act Correlation Study, 40828-40831 2017-18183 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Marine Mammal Protection Act: Stock Assessment Report for Southern Sea Otter in California, 40793-40796 2017-18169 Permits: Foreign Endangered Species and Marine Mammals, 40796-40797 2017-18209 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 40771-40772 2017-18131 Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee, 40770-40771 2017-18161 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, 40744-40745 2017-18168 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements under Services and Construction Contracts, 40769-40770 2017-18105 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40774-40775 2017-18117 Requests for Nominations: Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force, 40772-40774 2017-18182
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, 40772 2017-18139 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Inter-American Inter-American Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40793 2017-18263 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Biodiesel from Argentina, 40748-40750 2017-18166 Biodiesel from Indonesia, 40746-40748 2017-18167 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof, 40804-40805 2017-18140 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Gateway West Transmission Line Project, Idaho, 40797-40799 2017-18181 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements under Services and Construction Contracts, 40769-40770 2017-18105 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 40778-40779 2017-18195 Generic Clearance to Support Safe to Sleep Campaign, 40776-40777 2017-18196 Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee to Deputy Director for Intramural Research, 40776 2017-18197 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 40775-40776 2017-18137 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 40777-40778, 40781-40782 2017-18118 2017-18119 Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee; Cancellation, 40779 2017-18123 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 40775 2017-18121 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 40779-40780 2017-18120 2017-18122 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 40780-40781 2017-18200 National Institute on Aging, 40776, 40781 2017-18198 2017-18199 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of Northeastern United States: Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment, 40721-40734 2017-18034 International Fisheries: Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 2017 Commercial Pacific Bluefin Tuna Fishery Closure in Eastern Pacific Ocean, 40720-40721 2017-18157 NOTICES Exempted Fishing Permit; Applications: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries, 40751-40752 2017-18146 Meetings: Evaluation of National Estuarine Research Reserve, 40750 2017-18192 Revised Management Plans: National Estuarine Research Reserve System, 40752-40753 2017-18193 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Repatriations of Cultural Items: Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY, 40799-40800 2017-18188 Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, 40800 2017-18184 Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, Fort Worth, TX, 40802-40803 2017-18185 Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN, 40803-40804 2017-18187 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 40801-40802 2017-18186 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, 40808-40809 2017-18141 Registration Certificate—In Vitro Testing with Byproduct Material under General License, 40809-40810 2017-18147 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40808 2017-18273 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 40810-40811 2017-18207 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Prevailing Rate Systems: Definition of Brown County, WI, and Forsyth and Mecklenburg Counties, NC, to Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas, 40669 2017-18204 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 40811-40812 2017-18128 2017-18129 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Colombia; Continuation of Drug Interdiction Assistance (Presidential Determination No. 2017-10 of July 21, 2017), 40667 2017-18291 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 40823-40825 2017-18126 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 40812-40816 2017-18127 NYSE Arca, Inc., 40816-40823 2017-18125 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: Nebraska, 40825 2017-18130 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NEA/AC Performance Reporting System and State Assistance Management System Domestic Results Monitoring Module, 40826 2017-18194 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40782-40783 2017-18136 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Country of Origin Determinations: Certain Pharmaceutical Products, 40786-40793 2017-18205 Tablet Computers for Health Mobile and Hub Platforms, 40783-40786 2017-18202 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Loan Guaranty: Loans to Purchase Manufactured Homes; Correction, 40700-40701 2017-18037 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: CHAMP VA Benefits—Application, Claim, Other Health Insurance and Potential Liability, 40832-40833 2017-18159 Regulation for Submission of Evidence, 40831-40832 2017-18158 Meetings: Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee, 40833 2017-18206 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 40836-40941 2017-17271 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.

82 165 Monday, August 28, 2017 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 532 RIN 3206-AN50 Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Brown County, Wisconsin, and Forsyth and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina, to Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas AGENCY:

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the geographic boundaries of three nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas. Based on consensus recommendations of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is defining Brown County, Wisconsin, as an area of application county to the Lake, Illinois, NAF FWS wage area; Forsyth County, North Carolina, as an area of application to the Cumberland, NC, NAF FWS wage area; and Mecklenburg County, NC, as an area of application to the Richland, South Carolina, NAF FWS wage area. These changes are necessary because there are NAF FWS employees working in these three counties, and the counties are not currently defined in regulation to NAF wage areas.

DATES:

Effective date: This regulation is effective on August 28, 2017.

Applicability date: This change applies on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after September 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2838 or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On May 15, 2017, OPM issued a proposed rule (82 FR 22298) to define—

• Brown County, WI, as an area of application county to the Lake, IL, NAF FWS wage area;

• Forsyth County, NC, as an area of application to the Cumberland, NC, NAF FWS wage area; and

• Mecklenburg County, NC, as an area of application to the Richland, SC, NAF FWS wage area.

FPRAC, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, reviewed and recommended these changes by consensus. These changes will apply on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 30 days following publication of the final regulations.

The proposed rule had a 30-day comment period, during which OPM received no comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

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

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Kathleen M. McGettigan, Acting Director.

Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 532 as follows:

PART 532—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS 1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.

2. Appendix D to subpart B is amended by revising the wage area listing for the Lake, IL; Cumberland, NC; and Richland, SC, wage areas to read as follows: Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 532—Nonappropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas *    *    *    *    * ILLINOIS Lake Survey Area Illinois: Lake Area of Application. Survey area plus: Illinois: Cook Rock Island Vermilion Iowa: Johnson Michigan: Dickinson Marquette Wisconsin: Brown Dane Milwaukee *    *    *    *    * NORTH CAROLINA *    *    *    *    * Cumberland Survey Area North Carolina: Cumberland Area of Application. Survey area plus: North Carolina: Durham Forsyth Rowan *    *    *    *    * SOUTH CAROLINA *    *    *    *    * Richland Survey Area South Carolina: Richland Area of Application. Survey area plus: North Carolina: Buncombe Mecklenburg South Carolina Sumter Tennessee Washington *    *    *    *    *
[FR Doc. 2017-18204 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Product Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD; Amendment 39-18998; AD 2017-17-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts. This AD requires a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2017 (82 FR 22907) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40201) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part. The NPRM was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts. The SNPRM proposed to require new inspection locations for certain airplanes, and removing incorrect part numbers. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace structural parts made of an incorrect aluminum alloy. This condition could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0021, dated February 8, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Following an Airbus quality control review on the final assembly line, it was discovered that wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus published [Service Bulletin] (SB) A330-53-3261, SB A330-53-3262, and SB A340-53-5072, as applicable to aeroplane type/model, to provide instructions to identify the affected parts. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0206 to require a one-time special detailed inspection (SDI) [eddy current conductivity measurements] of certain cabin and/or cargo compartment parts for material identification and, depending on findings, replacement with serviceable parts.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus identified that the list of affected structural parts in SB A330-53-3261 was incorrect. Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB A330-53-3261 Revision 01 to introduce the new locations to be inspected and remove other parts not affected.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0206, which is superseded, and expands the locations to be inspected.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued the following service information:

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

This service information describes procedures for a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part. These documents are distinct because they apply to different parts on different airplanes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 17 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $53,465, or $1,445 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any on-condition repairs take about 45 work-hours and will require parts costing $0, for a cost of $3,825 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-17-08  Airbus: Amendment 39-18998; Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Product Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.

(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016; and/or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

(2) Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 1030, 1040, 1079, 1091, 1102, and 1122.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace structural parts made of an incorrect aluminum alloy. This condition could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) One-Time Measurement

Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness; do a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of the cabin and cargo compartment structural parts identified in the “Affected Part Number” column of table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.

(1) For cargo compartment structural parts for Model A330 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

(2) For cabin structural parts for Model A330 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin

A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015; except part number F5377004320300, which is located in the “cabin” area, but must be inspected in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

(3) For cargo compartment structural parts for Model A340 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

Table 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD—Parts To Be Inspected/Installed Affected part No. Acceptable
  • replacement
  • part No.
  • Area
    F5347126620600 F5347126620000 Cabin. F5347126621000 F5347126620400 Cabin. F5377004320300 F5377004320351 Cabin. F5347170420400 F5347170420400 Cargo. F5347170420600 F5347170420600 Cargo. G5367131300000 G5367131300000 Cargo. G5367173700000 G5367173700000 Cargo. G5367173800000 G5367173800000 Cargo.
    (h) Replacement

    If during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any affected part having a part number specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD is found to have a measured value greater than that specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02, “Inspection Flowchart,” of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, replace the affected part with an acceptable replacement part having a part number specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.

    (i) Exception to Certain Service Information

    Where Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02, “Inspection Flowchart,” of the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this AD specifies to “do the conductivity (σ) measurement with 60kHz (refer to Appendix 01) σ480 = ___MS/m,” the correct conductivity measurement is “σ60 = ___MS/m.”

    (j) Additional Inspection for Certain Airplanes

    For Model A330 airplanes on which the inspection and replacement, as applicable, specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD were done before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, dated June 23, 2015: Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, do a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of structural parts having part number (P/N) G5367131300000, P/N G5367173700000, and P/N G5367173800000, located in fuselage section 15, in accordance with the “Additional Work” section of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

    (k) Replacement

    If during the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, any affected part having a part number specified in paragraph (j) of this AD is found to have a measured value greater than that specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02, “Inspection Flowchart,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016: Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, replace the affected part with an acceptable replacement part having a part number specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

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

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0021, dated February 8, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated November 10, 2016.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 9, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17536 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0337; Product Identifier 2017-NM-006-AD; Amendment 39-19006; AD 2017-17-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of cracking of the vertical stiffener in the nose wheel well. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the nose wheel well bulkhead stiffener for any cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0337.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0337; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6447; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2017 (82 FR 22443). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracking of the vertical stiffener in the nose wheel well. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the nose wheel well bulkhead stiffener for any cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and possibly lead to cabin depressurization or a nose landing gear collapse.

    Comments

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

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (82 FR 22443, May 16, 2017) as paragraph (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0275, dated January 5, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection and a medium frequency eddy current inspection of the nose wheel well bulkhead stiffener for any cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 144 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 10 work-hour × $85 per hour = $850 per inspection cycle $0 $850 per inspection cycle $122,400 per inspection cycle.

    We estimate the following costs to do certain repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair 18 work-hour × $85 per hour = $1,530 $0 $1,530

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for other repairs specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-17-16 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19006; Docket No. FAA-2017-0337; Product Identifier 2017-NM-006-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0275, dated January 5, 2017.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the vertical stiffener in the nose wheel well. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and possibly lead to cabin depressurization or a nose landing gear collapse.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0275, dated January 5, 2017, except as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection and a medium frequency eddy current inspection of the nose wheel well bulkhead stiffener for any cracking, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0275, dated January 5, 2017; except as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0275, dated January 5, 2017.

    (h) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0275, dated January 5, 2017, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) If any cracking is found and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0275, dated January 5, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6447; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0275, dated January 5, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 11, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17591 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9518; Product Identifier 2015-NM-091-AD; Amendment 39-18989; AD 2017-16-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-19-09 and AD 2014-25-51, which applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2013-19-09 required replacing Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor conic plates with AOA sensor flat plates. AD 2014-25-51 required revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot). This new AD requires replacing certain AOA sensors; and doing a detailed inspection and a functional heating test for discrepancies on certain AOA sensors, and replacing the affected AOA sensors. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a Model A321 airplane encountered a blockage of two AOA probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Prot while the Mach number increased. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 2, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of November 6, 2013 (78 FR 60667, October 2, 2013).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9518.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9518; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-19-09, Amendment 39-17591 (78 FR 60667, October 2, 2013) (“AD 2013-19-09”), and AD 2014-25-51, Amendment 39-18067 (80 FR 3153, January 22, 2015) (“AD 2014-25-51”). AD 2013-19-09 and AD 2014-25-51 applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2016 (81 FR 95531). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that an Airbus Model A321 airplane encountered a blockage of two AOA probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Prot while the Mach number increased. The NPRM proposed to continue to require replacing AOA sensor conic plates with AOA sensor flat plates and revising the AFM to advise the flight crew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot. The NPRM also proposed to continue to require replacing certain AOA sensors; and doing a detailed inspection and a functional heating test for discrepancies on certain AOA sensors, and replacing the affected AOA sensors. We are issuing this AD to prevent a pitch down order due to abnormal activation of the Alpha Prot. An abnormal Alpha Prot, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0135, dated July 8, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.

    When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position. If the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AOA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws will continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed, known as VLS.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane.

    Investigation results indicated that A320 family airplanes equipped with certain UTC Aerospace (UTAS, formerly known as Goodrich) AOA sensors, or equipped with certain SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensors, appear to have a greater susceptibility to adverse environmental conditions than airplanes equipped with the latest Thales AOA sensor, Part Number (P/N) C16291AB, which was designed to improve A320 airplane AOA indication behaviour in heavy rain conditions.

    Having determined that replacement of these AOA sensors is necessary to achieve and maintain the required safety level of the airplane, EASA issued AD 2015-0087, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0236R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-06-03], [EASA] AD 2013-0022 (partially) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-19-09], and [EASA] AD 2014-0266-E [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-25-51], which were superseded, and requiring modification of the airplanes by replacement of the affected P/N sensors, and, after modification, prohibiting (re-)installation of those P/N AOA sensors. That [EASA] AD also required repetitive detailed visual inspections (DET) and functional heating tests of certain Thales AOA sensors and provided an optional terminating action for those inspections.

    Since EASA AD 2015-0087 was issued, based on further analysis results, Airbus issued Operators Information Transmission (OIT) Ref. 999.0015/15 Revision 1, instructing operators to speed up the removal from service of UTAS P/N 0861ED2 AOA sensors.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0087, which is superseded, but reduces the compliance times for airplanes with UTAS P/N 0861ED2 AOA sensors installed.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9518.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. Air Line Pilots Association, International stated that it supported the NPRM.

    Request To Revise Certain Exceptions

    Airbus and Virgin America requested that the NPRM be revised to allow airplanes that have utilized FAA Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) ANM-116-13-273R1 for probes having P/N C16291AB to be in compliance with the proposed requirements. Virgin America and Airbus stated that the language in paragraphs (l), (m)(2), (n), and (q) of the proposed AD conflict with the language specified in FAA AMOC ANM-116-13-273R1.

    We agree to revise this AD to address the commenters' request. FAA AMOC ANM-116-13-273R1 is limited to certain serial numbers that have passed the inspection and test. We have revised paragraphs (l), (m)(2), (n), and (q) of this AD to clarify the exception in FAA AMOC ANM-116-13-273R1.

    Request To Incorporate the Latest Service Information

    Airbus requested that the latest service information be used in the AD and credit given for previous actions done before the effective date of this AD.

    We agree to incorporate the latest service information in this AD. Accordingly, we have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; the introductory text to paragraph (k) of this AD, and paragraphs (l)(1), (m), and (n) of this AD. For Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1415, Revision 04, dated July 30, 2015; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1610, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1564, Revision 01, dated August 26, 2013; the changes are minor and do not add work to this AD. Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012, describes procedures for inspecting, re-identifying, and testing certain AOA sensors, and does not add work to this AD. We have also revised paragraph (q) of this AD to give credit for previous actions done before the effective date of this AD using earlier versions of service information.

    Request for Credit for Previous Actions

    Virgin America requested that the FAA include Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1452, dated January 29, 2010 (as specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2013-06-03 to inspect and replace the affected probe P/N C16291AA with P/N C16291AB), in paragraph (q), “Credit for Previous Actions,” of the proposed AD. Virgin America stated that these actions have resulted in installing compliant C16291AB probes in the affected positions prior to the effective date of the AD.

    We disagree with Virgin America with allowing use of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1452, dated January 29, 2010, for accomplishment of the installation of the probe P/N C16291AB. There are certain probe P/Ns C16291AB having a serial number specified in Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012, and these probes may not be installed unless they have been inspected and re-identified, and have passed a functional test, in accordance with the following service information:

    • Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012.

    • Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 03, dated April 10, 2012.

    • Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 02, dated December 16, 2011.

    • Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 01, dated December 03, 2009.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We have reviewed the following Airbus service information:

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1415, Revision 04, dated July 30, 2015. This service information describes procedures for performing a detailed inspection and a functional heating test for discrepancies on certain AOA sensors, and replacing the affected AOA sensors.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1444, Revision 01, dated March 17, 2011. This service information describes procedures for replacing certain SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensors.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1564, Revision 01, dated August 26, 2013. This service information describes procedures for installing AOA sensor plates having a certain part number.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1610, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2015. This service information describes procedures for replacing certain UTAS AOA sensors.

    We have reviewed the following Thales service information, which describes procedures for inspecting, re-identifying, and testing certain AOA sensors. These documents are distinct due to editorial revisions.

    • Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012.

    • Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 03, dated April 10, 2012.

    • Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 02, dated December 16, 2011.

    • Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 01, dated December 03, 2009.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Replacement (retained actions from AD 2013-19-09) 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $0 $680 $652,120 Revising the AFM (retained actions from AD 2014-25-51) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 85 81,515 Replacement and Inspection (new action) 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 The parts cost is unavailable 425 407,575

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 The parts cost is unavailable $425

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-19-09, Amendment 39-17591 (78 FR 60667, October 2, 2013); and AD 2014-25-51, Amendment 39-18067 (80 FR 3153, January 22, 2015); and adding the following new AD: 2017-16-12 Airbus: Amendment 39-18989; Docket No. FAA-2016-9518; Product Identifier 2015-NM-091-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2013-19-09, Amendment 39-17591 (78 FR 60667, October 2, 2013) (“AD 2013-19-09”); and AD 2014-25-51, Amendment 39-18067 (80 FR 3153, January 22, 2015) (“AD 2014-25-51”).

    (2) This AD affects AD 2013-06-03, Amendment 39-17399 (78 FR 19085, March 29, 2013) (“AD 2013-06-03”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that an Airbus Model A321 airplane encountered a blockage of two Angle of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. We are issuing this AD to prevent a pitch down order due to abnormal activation of the Alpha Prot. An abnormal Alpha Prot, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained New Flat Plate Installation, With Removed Post-Installation Requirement, Specific Delegation Approval Language, and New Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2013-19-09, with a removed post-installation requirement, specific delegation approval language, and revised service information. Within 5 months after November 6, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-19-09), remove all AOA sensor conic plates having part number (P/N) F3411060200000 or P/N F3411060900000, and install AOA sensor flat plates having P/Ns specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Install the AOA sensor plates in accordance with the applicable method specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Install P/N D3411013520200 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-34-1564, including Appendix 01, dated January 25, 2013, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1564, Revision 01, dated August 26, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1564, Revision 01, dated August 26, 2013, may be used for accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph.

    (2) Install P/N D3411007620000 or P/N D3411013520000, using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (h) Retained Exception, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exception provided by paragraph (k) of AD 2013-19-09, with no changes. An airplane on which Airbus modification 154863 (installation of AOA sensor flat plate) and modification 154864 (coating protection) have been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided that, since first flight, no AOA sensor conic plate having P/N F3411060200000 or P/N F3411060900000 has been installed on that airplane.

    (i) Retained Parts Installation Prohibition, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2013-19-09, with no changes.

    (1) For any airplane that has AOA sensor flat plates installed: As of November 6, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-19-09), do not install any AOA sensor conic plate having P/N F3411060200000 or P/N F3411060900000, and do not use any AOA protection cover having P/N 98D34203003000.

    (2) For any airplane that has AOA sensor conic plates installed: As of November 6, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-19-09), after modification of the airplane as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do not install any AOA sensor conic plate having P/N F3411060200000 or P/N F3411060900000, and do not use any AOA protection cover having P/N 98D34203003000.

    (j) Retained Revision of Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-51, with no changes. Within 2 days after February 6, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-25-51), revise the AFM to incorporate procedures to address undue activation of Alpha Prot by inserting the text specified in figure 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD into the Emergency Procedures section of the applicable AFM, to advise the flight crew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to the text specified in figure 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD is included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM, and the text specified in figure 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD may be removed.

    ER28AU17.022 (k) New Requirement of This AD: Replacement of Certain UTAS (Formerly Goodrich) AOA Sensors

    For airplanes on which any UTAS AOA sensor, P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2, is installed: Within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), and (k)(4) of this AD, replace the affected Captain and First Officer AOA sensors with Thales AOA sensors, P/N C16291AB, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1610, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2015.

    (1) For Model A318 and A321 series airplanes on which any UTAS AOA sensor, P/N 0861ED, is installed: Replace within 7 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For Model A319 and A320 series airplanes on which any UTAS AOA sensor, P/N 0861ED, is installed: Replace within 22 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) For Model A318 and A321 series airplanes on which any UTAS AOA sensor, P/N 0861ED2, is installed: Replace within 4 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (4) For Model A319 and A320 series airplanes on which any UTAS AOA sensor, P/N 0861ED2, is installed: Replace within 7 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (l) New Requirement of This AD: Replacement of Certain SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA Sensors

    (1) For airplanes on which any SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor, P/N 45150320 or P/N 16990568, is installed: Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) or (l)(1)(ii) of this AD, replace each SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor, P/N 45150320 and P/N 16990568, with a Thales AOA sensor, P/N C16291AB, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1444, Revision 01, dated March 17, 2011; except AOA sensor probes P/N C16291AB having a serial number specified in Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012, may not be installed unless the AOA probe sensors have been inspected and re-identified, and have passed a functional test, in accordance with the Thales service information specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), or (l)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) For Model A318 and A321 series airplanes on which any SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor, P/N 45150320 or P/N 16990568, is installed: Replace within 7 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) For Model A319 and A320 series airplanes on which any SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor, P/N 45150320 or P/N 16990568, is installed: Replace within 22 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) As specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, use the following Thales service information specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), or (l)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012.

    (ii) Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 03, dated April 10, 2012.

    (iii) Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 02, dated December 16, 2011.

    (iv) Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 01, dated December 03, 2009.

    (m) New Requirement of This AD: Functional Heating Test, and Corrective Action for Certain AOA Sensors

    For an airplane on which any Thales AOA sensor, P/N C16291AA, is installed: Before exceeding 5,200 flight hours accumulated by each affected Thales AOA sensor since its first installation on an airplane, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a functional heating test of each AOA sensor, P/N C16291AA, to determine the maximum current (Imax) value, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1415, Revision 04, dated July 30, 2015. If, during any functional heating test, any Imax value is below the flow chart value as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1415, Revision 04, dated July 30, 2015, before further flight, replace each discrepant AOA sensor with a sensor identified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1415, Revision 04, dated July 30, 2015. Repeat the functional heating test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours.

    (1) Replace with a Thales AOA sensor, P/N C16291AA, that has passed a functional heating test as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1415, Revision 04, dated July 30, 2015.

    (2) Replace with a Thales AOA sensor, P/N C16291AB, except AOA sensor probes P/N C16291AB having a serial number specified in Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012, may not be installed unless the AOA probe sensors have been inspected and re-identified, and have passed a functional test, in accordance with the Thales service information specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), or (l)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    (n) Optional Terminating Action

    Modification of an airplane by replacing each Thales P/N C16291AA AOA sensor with a Thales P/N C16291AB AOA sensor, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1444, Revision 01, dated March 17, 2011, terminates the repetitive functional heating tests required in paragraph (m) of this AD for that airplane; except AOA sensor probes P/N C16291AB having a serial number specified in Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012, may not be installed, unless the AOA probe sensors have been inspected and re-identified, and have passed a functional test, in accordance with the Thales service information specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), or (l)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    (o) New Provisions of This AD: Airplanes Not Affected

    An airplane with Airbus modification 150006 (installation of Thales P/N C16291AB AOA sensors), but without modification 26934 (installation of UTAS P/N 0861ED AOA sensors) embodied in production, is not affected by the requirements of paragraphs (k), (l), and (m) of this AD, provided it is determined that no AOA sensor having SEXTANT/THOMSON P/N 45150320 or 16990568, or UTAS P/N 0861ED or 0861ED2, has been installed on that airplane since its date of manufacture.

    (p) New Requirement of This AD: Parts Installation Prohibitions

    (1) As of the effective date of this AD: For an airplane on which only Thales AOA sensors, P/N C16291AB, are installed, do not install a Thales AOA sensor, P/N C16291AA, on that airplane. This parts installation prohibition terminates the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of AD 2013-06-03 for the airplanes identified in this paragraph.

    (2) As of the effective date of this AD: For an airplane on which any combination of Thales AOA sensors, P/N C16291AA and Thales P/N C16291AB, is installed, do not install any SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor, P/N 45150320 or 16990568, or UTAS AOA sensor, P/N 0861ED or 0861ED2, on that airplane.

    (3) After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, do not install any AOA sensor with a part number specified in paragraphs (p)(3)(i) and (p)(3)(ii) of this AD on that airplane, with the exception that installation of a UTAS P/N 0861ED AOA sensor is allowed in the standby position of that airplane.

    (i) SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensors, P/N 45150320 and P/N 16990568.

    (ii) UTAS AOA sensors, P/N 0861ED and P/N 0861ED2.

    (q) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1610, dated March 31, 2015.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1444, dated October 7, 2009; except AOA sensor probes P/N C16291AB having a serial number specified in Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012, may not be installed unless the AOA probe sensors have been inspected and re-identified, and have passed a functional test, using the Thales service information specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), or (l)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1415, Revision 03, July 8, 2010.

    (r) Acceptable Parts

    Installation of a version (part number) of an AOA sensor approved after the effective date of this AD is an approved method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (k), (l), or (m) of this AD, as applicable, provided the requirements specified in paragraphs (r)(1) and (r)(2) of this AD are met.

    (1) The version (part number) must be approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (2) The installation must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (s) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (u)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-19-09 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (t)(1) of this AD.

    (iii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-25-51 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD.

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

    (t) Retained Provisions for Special Flight Permits

    (1) For the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD: Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 TR TR286, Issue 1.0, dated December 17, 2012, has been inserted into the Emergency Procedures of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AFM.

    (2) For the requirements of paragraphs (j) of this AD: Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided the revision required by paragraph (j) of this AD has been done.

    (u) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0135, dated July 8, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9518.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (v)(5) and (v)(6) of this AD.

    (v) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 2, 2017.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1415, Revision 04, dated July 30, 2015.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1444, Revision 01, dated March 17, 2011.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1564, Revision 01, dated August 26, 2013.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1610, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2015.

    (v) Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 04, dated October 11, 2012.

    (vi) Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 03, dated April 10, 2012.

    (vii) Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 02, dated December 16, 2011.

    (viii) Thales Service Bulletin C16291A-34-007, Revision 01, dated December 03, 2009.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 6, 2013, Amendment 39-17591 (78 FR 60667, October 2, 2013).

    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-34-1564, including Appendix 01, dated January 25, 2013.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 2, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16860 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0652; Product Identifier 2017-NE-18-AD; Amendment 39-18997; AD 2017-17-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent XWB-75, Trent XWB-79, Trent XWB-79B, and Trent XWB-84 turbofan engines. This AD requires inspection of the intermediate-pressure (IP) turbine stage 2 locking plates. This AD was prompted by a report of several IP turbine stage 2 locking plates cracked during module assembly. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective September 12, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 12, 2017.

    We must receive comments on this AD by October 12, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0652.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0652; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0652; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-18-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0088, dated May 16, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During module assembly, cracking was observed on several intermediate pressure (IP) turbine stage 2 locking plates from one particular supplier. These locking plates form part of the IP turbine stage 2 assembly, providing axial retention of the IP turbine stage 2 blades onto the disk, and constitute a seal for the local air system. These locking plates are pre-bent during manufacture and are pressed flat during installation such that they fit between grooves in the IP stage 2 disk and blades. There are 16 locking plates, Part Number (P/N) KH12922 or P/N KH16183, installed on an IP turbine stage 2 assembly. It is possible that parts, manufactured by this supplier, may have cracked during module assembly, without those cracks being detectable prior to release to service of an engine. Propagation of cracks during engine operation may lead to loss of a locking plate. Missing locking plates will allow hot gas ingestion which will locally overheat the blade retention features of the disk.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to accelerated fatigue of the blade retention features of the disk and release of one or more IP turbine stage 2 blades, possibly resulting in high energy uncontained debris release from the engine, with consequent damage to, and reduced control of, the aeroplane.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0652.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    RR has issued Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent XWB 72-AJ738, dated April 11, 2017. The NMSB describes procedures to inspect the IP turbine stage 2 locking plates. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of EASA, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires inspection of the IP turbine stage 2 locking plates.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 0 engine installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Inspection 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $0
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-17-07 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-18997; Docket No. FAA-2017-0652; Product Identifier 2017-NE-18-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 12, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent XWB-75, Trent XWB-79, Trent XWB-79B, and Trent XWB-84 turbofan engines with an engine serial number (S/N) listed in Appendix 1 of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent XWB 72-AJ738, dated April 11, 2017, and with intermediate-pressure (IP) turbine stage 2 locking plates, part number (P/N) KH12922 or KH16183, installed.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 7250, Turbine/Turboprop Engine/Turbine Section.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of several IP turbine stage 2 locking plates cracked during module assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IP turbine stage 2 locking plates, uncontained release of the IP turbine stage 2 blades, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (1) Inspect the IP turbine stage 2 locking plates on-wing before exceeding 750 engine flight cycles (FCs) since new, or within 100 engine FCs after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A., of RR Alert NMSB Trent XWB 72-AJ738, dated April 11, 2017, to do the inspection.

    (2) Thereafter, re-inspect the IP turbine stage 2 locking plates at intervals not to exceed 750 engine FCs since the last locking plate inspection. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A., of RR Alert NMSB Trent XWB 72-AJ738, dated April 11, 2017, to do the inspection.

    (i) If all IP turbine stage 2 locking plates installed on the engine have an S/N beginning with 20452, or are not marked with an S/N, the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is not required.

    (ii) If one or more IP turbine stage 2 locking plates are missing, remove the engine from service within the compliance times specified in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(3), of RR Alert NMSB Trent XWB 72-AJ738, dated April 11, 2017.

    (3) Inspect the IP turbine stage 2 locking plates during the next engine shop visit (ESV) after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B., of RR Alert NMSB Trent XWB 72-AJ738, dated April 11, 2017, to do this inspection. This in-shop inspection may be substituted for the on-wing inspection required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD.

    (ii) If one or more IP turbine stage 2 locking plates are missing, use the acceptance criteria in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.(3), of RR Alert NMSB Trent XWB 72-AJ738 dated April 11, 2017, to disposition the engine.

    (g) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an engine unless the IP turbine stage 2 locking plates were inspected using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A. or 3.B., of RR Alert NMSB Trent XWB 72-AJ738, dated April 11, 2017.

    (h) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an ESV is when the engine is subject to a serviceability check and repair, rebuild, or overhaul.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected].

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected].

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2017-0088, dated May 16, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0642.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin Trent XWB 72-AJ738, dated April 11, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 16, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18133 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0472; Product Identifier 2016-NM-148-AD; Amendment 39-19002; AD 2017-17-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the wing bottom skin at the main landing gear (MLG) reinforcing plate is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires a modification of the wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0472.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0472; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2017 (82 FR 22904) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate is subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require a modification of the wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate. We are issuing this AD to prevent multi-site damage in the bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0170, dated August 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In response to the FAA Part 26 rule, wing structural items of the Airbus A310 design that are deemed potentially susceptible to Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) have been assessed. The bottom skin at the main landing gear (MLG) reinforcing plate has been highlighted as an area susceptible to Multi Site Damage (MSD).

    This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the wing.

    Airbus performed a detailed widespread fatigue damage tolerance analysis of the bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, and concluded that a modification is necessary to the fastener holes at the inboard edge of the reinforcing plate forward of the rear spar. The modification consists of inspection [related investigative actions of a check and a rotating probe inspection] and a first oversize of the critical holes on the first two rows of fasteners [and corrective actions, e.g., repair]. Airbus modification 13751 was introduced and Service Bulletin (SB) A310-57-2104 was issued to provide in-service modification instructions. The accomplishment of this modification at the specified time will recondition/renovate/extend the life of the fastener holes in the bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate and prevent the development of MSD up to the Extended Service Goal (ESG).

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires certain modifications to the wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, forward of the wing rear spar [including related investigative actions of a check and a rotating probe inspection and corrective actions, e.g., repair].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0472.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-57-2104, dated December 15, 2015. This service information describes procedures for modification of the left-hand and right-hand wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Modification 52 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,420 $12,000 $16,420 $131,360
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-17-12 Airbus: Amendment 39-19002; Docket No. FAA-2017-0472; Product Identifier 2016-NM-148-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the wing bottom skin at the main landing gear (MLG) reinforcing plate is subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent multi-site damage in the bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification

    Within the compliance times defined in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, table 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or table 3 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable to airplane type and utilization: Do a modification of the left-hand and right-hand wing bottom skin at the MLG reinforcing plate, including all related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2104, dated December 15, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all related investigative and applicable corrective actions before further flight. For the purpose of this AD, the term “short range” applies to airplanes with an average flight time (AFT) lower than 1.5 flight hours per flight cycle, and the term “long range” applies to airplanes with an average flight time equal to or higher than 1.5 flight hours per flight cycle. For determining the “short range” and “long range” airplanes, the AFT is the total accumulated flight hours, counted from take-off to touch-down, divided by the total accumulated flight cycles at the effective date of this AD.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Model A310-200 Series Airplanes Compliance time
  • (whichever occurs later, A or B)
  • A Before exceeding 28,800 flight cycles (FC) or 57,600 flight hours (FH), whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane. B Within 960 FC, or 1,920 FH, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    Table 2 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Model A310-300 “Short-Range” Airplanes Compliance time
  • (whichever occurs later, A or B)
  • A Before exceeding 27,700 FC or 77,700 FH, whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane. B Within 920 FC, or 2,580 FH, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    Table 3 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Model A310-300 “Long-Range” Airplanes Compliance time
  • (whichever occurs later, A or B)
  • A Before exceeding 20,500 FC or 102,500 FH, whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane. B Within 680 FC, or 3,420 FH, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    (h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2104, dated December 15, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0170, dated August 19, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0472.

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

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2104, dated December 15, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 9, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17537 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0512; Product Identifier 2017-NM-031-AD; Amendment 39-19005; AD 2017-17-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the landing gear alternate-extension system. This AD requires replacement of certain nose landing gear and main landing gear electro-mechanical actuators. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0512.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0512; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25545) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failures of the landing gear alternate-extension system (AES). The NPRM proposed to require replacement of certain nose landing gear and main landing gear electro-mechanical actuators. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the landing gear AES and consequent landing with some or all of the landing gear not extended.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-08, dated February 22, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Malfunctions of the landing gear Alternate-Extension System (AES) have been experienced. Failure of the landing gear AES could prevent the landing gear from extending in the case of a failure of the primary landing gear extension system.

    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the replacement of the [nose landing gear] NLG and [main landing gear] MLG [electro-mechanical actuators] EMA [part numbers] P/Ns BA698-85006-1 and BA698-85007-1.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0512.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047, Revision A, dated December 5, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing certain nose landing gear and main landing gear electro-mechanical actuators. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 39 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost
  • per product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Replacement 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 Not available $340 $13,260

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-17-15 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19005; Docket No. FAA-2017-0512; Product Identifier 2017-NM-031-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 19001 through 19039 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by failures of the landing gear alternate-extension system (AES). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the landing gear AES and consequent landing with some or all of the landing gear not extended.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement

    Within 1,200 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace the nose landing gear (NLG) and main landing gear (MLG) electro-mechanical actuators (EMAs) having part numbers (P/Ns) BA698-85006-1 and BA698-85007-1 with P/Ns BA698-85006-3 and BA698-85007-3, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047, Revision A, dated December 5, 2016 (“670BA-32-047, Revision A”). Where 670BA-32-047, Revision A, instructs operators to contact Bombardier if it is not possible to complete all the instructions in 670BA-32-047, Revision A, because of the configuration of the airplane, this AD requires that any deviation from the instructions provided in 670BA-32-047, Revision A, must be approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an NLG or MLG EMA having P/N BA698-85006-1 or BA698-85007-1, on any airplane.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047, dated February 28, 2014.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7300; fax: 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-08, dated February 22, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0512.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.

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

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047, Revision A, dated December 5, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 10, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17590 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0479; Product Identifier 2016-NM-202-AD; Amendment 39-19004; AD 2017-17-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes. This AD was prompted by the discovery of circuit breakers of unsuitable strength that fail to protect the system from an overcurrent. This AD requires replacing certain circuit breakers. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0479.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0479; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2017 (82 FR 23158) (“the NPRM”).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0234, dated November 24, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Circuit breakers of an unsuitable strength have been found installed on SAAB SF340A aeroplanes, failing in protecting the system from an overcurrent.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to the overheating of wires, possibly resulting in smoke or fire on the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Saab issued [service bulletin] SB 340-33-058 (later revised) to provide instructions for replacement of circuit breakers.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of circuit breakers of unsuitable strength in the passenger reading light system.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0479.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Saab Service Bulletin 340-33-058, Revision 01, dated October 21, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing any circuit breaker having part number (P/N) MS3320-10 installed at position 2LJ (L25) and position 4LJ (L26) with a circuit breaker having P/N MS3320-7-5. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 19 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Replacement 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $220 $390 $7,410
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of The Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-17-14 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems): Amendment 39-19004; Docket No. FAA-2017-0479; Product Identifier 2016-NM-202-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 004 through 138 inclusive; except those on which Saab Service Bulletin 340-33-053 (modification/removal for cargo/freighter configuration) has been embodied.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 33, Lights.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of circuit breakers of unsuitable strength that fail to protect the system from an overcurrent. We are issuing this AD to prevent such conditions, which could lead to overheating of the wires and possibly result in smoke or fire in the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace any circuit breaker having part number (P/N) MS3320-10 installed at position 2LJ (L25) and position 4LJ (L26) with a circuit breaker having P/N MS3320-7-5, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-33-058, Revision 01, dated October 21, 2016.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a circuit breaker having P/N MS3320-10 on any passenger reading light system at position 2LJ (L25) or position 4LJ (L26), on any airplane.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Saab Service Bulletin 340-33-058, dated May 30, 2016.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0234, dated November 24, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0479.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.

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

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Saab Service Bulletin 340-33-058, Revision 01, dated October 21, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 9, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17589 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0481; Product Identifier 2016-NM-196-AD; Amendment 39-19003; AD 2017-17-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of low clearance in the aft equipment bay between auxiliary power unit (APU) generator power cables and a hydraulic line, which can cause damage to wire insulation. This AD requires an inspection of the APU generator power cables and the adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and repair, if necessary; and modification of the APU generator power cable installation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0481.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0481; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2017 (82 FR 22913) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of low clearance in the aft equipment bay between APU generator power cables and a hydraulic line, which can cause damage to wire insulation. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the APU generator power cables and the adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and repair, if necessary; and modification of the APU generator power cable installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical arcing from power cables, which could cause a fire in the aft equipment bay.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-28, dated September 15, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Low clearance between the APU generator power cables and a hydraulic return line was found in the Aft Equipment Bay (AEB) on some aeroplanes in service. Absence of clearance can cause damage to the insulation of the wire, which can lead to a fault in the APU electrical system or arcing with the metallic hydraulic return line and could cause a fire in the AEB.

    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate an [general visual] inspection [for damage] of the APU generator power cables and the hydraulic return line, [and repair, if necessary] and a modification of the clamp arrangement to give sufficient clearance between the power cables and the hydraulic return line.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0481.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-28, dated July 27, 2016; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-003, dated July 27, 2016. This service information describes procedures for the inspection of the APU generator power cables and adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and repair, if necessary; and modification of the APU generator power cable installation. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 162 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspect and modify cables 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 (1) $85 $13,770 1 We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts cost associated with the modification specified in this AD.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair Up to 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $425 (1) Up to $425. 1 We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts cost associated with the repair specified in this AD.

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-17-13 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19003; Docket No. FAA-2017-0481; Product Identifier 2016-NM-196-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 20003 through 20635 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of low clearance in the aft equipment bay between auxiliary power unit (APU) generator power cables and a hydraulic line, which can cause damage to wire insulation. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical arcing from power cables, which could cause a fire in the aft equipment bay.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection of APU Generator Power Cables and Hydraulic Line, Repairs, and Modification

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers 20003 through 20500 inclusive: Do a general visual inspection of the APU generator power cables and the adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and do all applicable repairs; and modify the APU generator power cable installation; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-28, dated July 27, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable repairs before further flight.

    (2) For airplanes having serial numbers 20501 through 20635 inclusive: Do a general visual inspection of the APU generator power cables and the adjacent hydraulic line for damage, and do all applicable repairs; and modify the APU generator power cable installation; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-003, dated July 27, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable repairs before further flight.

    (h) Exception to the Service Information

    Where Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-28, dated July 27, 2016; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-003, dated July 27, 2016, specify to contact the manufacturer for repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-28, dated September 15, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0481.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-28, dated July 27, 2016.

    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-003, dated July 27, 2016.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 9, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17588 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0296; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-7] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oskaloosa, IA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 24271, May 26, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0296 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, Oskaloosa, IA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, Oskaloosa, IA, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. The segment within 2.6 miles each side of the 018° bearing from the Oskaloosa NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7 miles north of the NDB is removed due to the decommissioning of the NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach procedure. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE IA E5 Oskaloosa, IA [Amended] Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, IA (Lat. 41°13′34″ N., long 92°29′38″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, excluding that airspace within the Ottumwa, IA Class E airspace area.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 18, 2017. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18107 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0182; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-3] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Arkadelphia, AR AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dexter B. Florence Memorial Field Airport, Arkadelphia, AR. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Arkadelphia non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action enhances the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also, updates the airport name in the legal description from Arkadelphia Municipal Airport to Dexter B. Florence Memorial Field Airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On April 20, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 18600) Docket No. FAA-2017-0182, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dexter B. Florence Memorial Field Airport, Arkadelphia, AR. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius to 6.5 miles and removing the 5.2-mile wide segment (2.6 miles each side of the 222° bearing) from the Arkadelphia RBN extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.7 miles southwest of the Dexter B. Florence Memorial Field Airport (updated in the legal description from Arkadelphia Municipal Airport).

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning and cancellation of the Arkadelphia NDB and NDB approaches, which would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW AR E5 Arkadelphia, AR [Amended] Dexter B. Florence Memorial Field Airport, AR (Lat. 34°05′59″ N., long. 93°03′58″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Dexter B. Florence Memorial Field Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 16, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17882 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0165; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-1] Amendment of Class E Airspace; West Plains, MO AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at West Plains Regional Airport (formerly West Plains Municipal Airport), West Plains, MO, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Hutton (HUW) VHF omnidirectional range (VOR), and cancellation of the VOR approach. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The airport name will also be updated.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    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 supports standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (FR 82 16140, April 3, 2017), Docket No. FAA-2017-0165, to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at West Plains Regional Airport, West Plains, MO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received in support of the proposal.

    Except for editorial changes, this rule remains the same from the NPRM.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile (from a 6.9-mile) radius of West Plains Regional Airport, West Plains, MO, and removes the segment extending 10 miles south from the Hutton VOR/DME due to the decommissioning of the VOR, and cancellation of the VOR approach. The airport name is changed from West Plains Municipal Airport to West Plains Regional Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE MO E5 West Plains, MO [Amended] West Plains Regional Airport, MO (Lat. 36°52′42″ N., long. 91°54′10″ W.)

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on August 18, 2017. Christopher Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18115 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0722; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-16] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mason, MI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends the airspace description of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Mason Jewett Field, Mason, MI, removing the exclusionary language contained in the airspace description referencing Skyway Estates Airport, Eaton Rapids, MI, and to bring the airspace description in compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    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 amends the airspace description of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Mason Jewett Field, Mason, MI.

    History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 19007, April 25, 2017) a notice of proposed rulemaking to remove Class E airspace at Skyway Estates Airport, Eaton Rapids, MI, as standard instrument approach procedures have been cancelled and controlled airspace is no longer required. The exclusionary language referencing Eaton Rapids, MI, is being removed from the airspace description for Mason Jewett Field, Mason, MI. This is an administrative change to bring the airspace description into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing the exclusionary language that reads “excluding that airspace within the Eaton Rapids, MI, Class E airspace area” from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Mason Jewett Field, Mason, MI.

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedure when the agency for “good cause” finds that these procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” This is an administrative change amending the description for Mason Jewett Field, Mason, MI, by removing the exclusionary language from the description and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL MI E5 Mason, MI [Amended] Mason Jewett Field, MI (Lat. 42°33′57″ N., long. 84°25′24″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the Mason Jewett Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 16, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17886 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0184; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-5] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Pauls Valley, OK AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 17778 April 13, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0184, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Pauls Valley Municipal Airport, Pauls Valley, OK. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that the title for Class E airspace in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A was incomplete, and is corrected in this rule. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Pauls Valley Municipal Airport, Pauls Valley, OK. The segment 2.6 miles each side of the 169° bearing from the Pauls Valley NDB extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 7.6 miles south of the airport is removed due to the decommissioning of the Pauls Valley NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Also, the title for paragraph 6005, as published in FAA Order 7400.11A, is corrected from “Class E Airspace Areas” to “Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth”.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW OK E5 Pauls Valley, OK [Amended] Pauls Valley Municipal Airport, OK (Lat. 34°42′34″ N., long. 97°13′24″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Pauls Valley Municipal Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 000° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 11.6 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 18, 2017. Christopher Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18114 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0753] Special Local Regulation; Olympia Harbor Days Tug Boat Races, Budd Inlet, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulations for the Olympia Harbor Days Tug Boat Races, Budd Inlet, WA from 11 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 3, 2017. This action is necessary to restrict vessel movement within the specified race area immediately prior to, during, and immediately after racing activity in order to ensure the safety of participants, spectators and the maritime public. Entry into, transit through, mooring or anchoring within the specified race area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or Designated Representatives.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1309 will be enforced from 11 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6051, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulations for Olympia Harbor Days Tug Boat Races, Budd Inlet, WA in 33 CFR 100.1309 on September 3, 2017, from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m.

    The following area is specified as a race area: All waters of Budd Inlet, WA the width of the navigation channel south of a line connecting the following points: 47°05.530′ N.,122°55.844′ W. and 47°05.528′ N., 122°55.680′ W. until reaching the northernmost end of the navigation channel at a line connecting the following points: 47°05.108′ N., 122°55.799′′′ W. and 47°05.131′ N., 122°55.659′ W. then southeasterly until reaching the southernmost entrance of the navigation channel at a line connecting the following points: 47°3.946′ N., 122°54.577′ W., 47°04.004′ N., 122° 4.471′ W.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1309, the regulated area shall be closed immediately prior to, during and immediately after the event to all persons and vessels not participating in the event and authorized by the event sponsor. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators and the maritime public. Entry into, transit through, mooring or anchoring within the specified race area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or Designated Representatives. All persons or vessels who desire to enter the race area while it is enforced must obtain permission from the on-scene patrol craft on VHF channel 13.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1309 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Linda A. Sturgis, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18138 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0231] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, New York, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge across the Hutchinson River, mile 0.9 at New York, New York. This deviation is necessary to complete application of protective coating on the bridge as well as maintenance of operating machinery. This modified deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for periods of up to two weeks in order to expedite work efforts.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from August 28, 2017 through 12:01 a.m. on September 29, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on August 22, 2017 until August 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0231 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The New York City Department of Transportation, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate application of protective coating to the bridge as well as maintenance of operating machinery. The Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge, across the Hutchinson River, mile 0.9 at New York, New York has a vertical clearance of 30 feet at mean high water and 38 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.793(b).

    On May 1, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, New York, NY” in the Federal Register (82 FR 20257). On July 6, 2017, the Coast Guard published a modified temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, New York, NY” in the Federal Register (82 FR 31254). Under that modified temporary deviation, the draw of the Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge would remain closed to navigation for a period not to exceed 14 days; the draw would then open for vessels in accordance with established operating regulations for a period not to exceed 7 days, after which the cycle would repeat. Between September 1, 2017 and September 29, 2017, the draw would remain closed to navigation for a period not to exceed 7 days; the draw would then open for vessels in accordance with established operation regulations for another 7 days, after which the cycle would repeat.

    In the interest of expediting work efforts and closing the project out this year, the New York City Department of Transportation has requested that between August 18, 2017 and September 29, 2017 the draw of the Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge remain closed to navigation for a period not to exceed 14 days; the draw will then open for vessels in accordance with established operating regulations for a period not to exceed 7 days, after which the cycle will repeat.

    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.

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

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

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Christopher J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18145 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0806] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the I-64 (High Rise) Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, mile 7.1, at Chesapeake, VA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate routine maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    The deviation is effective from 4 a.m. through 5:30 a.m. on August 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0806] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Martin Bridges, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6422, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Virginia Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the I-64 (High Rise) Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, mile 7.1, at Chesapeake, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.997(e), to facilitate rigging equipment into the bascule pits.

    Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 4 a.m. through 5:30 a.m. on August 27, 2017. The drawbridge has two spans, each with double-leaf bascule draws, and both spans have a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 65 feet above mean high water.

    The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River is used by a verity of vessels including recreational vessels, tug and barge traffic, small fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

    The channel will be closed to all traffic from 4 a.m. through 4:30 a.m. and from 5 a.m. through 5:30 a.m. on August 27, 2017. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position from 4:30 a.m. through 5 a.m. may do so. The bridge spans will not be able to open in case of an emergency and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18160 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 36 RIN 2900-AC85 Loan Guaranty: Loans To Purchase Manufactured Homes; Correction AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 14, 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its manufactured home loan guaranty regulations to comply with certain provisions of the Veterans' Home Loan Program Improvements and Property Rehabilitation Act of 1987. That document erred in redesignating certain paragraphs in the regulatory provision pertaining to maximum loan amounts and terms. This document corrects that final rule.

    DATES:

    Effective on August 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erica Lewis, Management Analyst, Loan Guaranty Service (26A1), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington DC 20420, (202) 632-8823. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 14, 1993, VA published a final rule in the Federal Register, 58 FR 37857-37861, amending its manufactured home loan guaranty regulations to comply with certain provisions of the Veterans' Home Loan Program Improvements and Property Rehabilitation Act of 1987. Public Law 100-198, 101 Stat. 1315. VA amended 38 CFR 36.4204 by redesignating certain paragraphs within that section. 58 FR 37857-37859. These amendments effectually created two paragraph (d) designations in § 36.4204. See 38 CFR 36.4204. This document corrects that final rule. This document also corrects a minor punctuation error occurring in the newly redesignated paragraph (f).

    Specifically, VA is correcting § 36.4204 to redesignate paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) as (f), (g), and (h) and redesignate the current second (d) paragraph as new paragraph (e).

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 36

    Condominiums, Loan programs—housing and community development, Manufactured homes, Veterans.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Jeffrey Martin, Office Program Manager, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs corrects 38 CFR part 36 as set forth below:

    PART 36—LOAN GUARANTY 1. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501 and 3720.

    § 36.4204 [Amended]
    2. In § 36.4204: a. Redesignate paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) as paragraphs (f), (g), and (h); b. Redesignate the current second (d) paragraph as new paragraph (e); and c. Remove the semicolon at the end of the newly redesignated paragraph (f) introductory text and add a colon in its place.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18037 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0004; FRL-9966-94-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Revisions to Jefferson County Emissions Monitoring and Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 22, 2011, and April 20, 2011, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), submitted revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) on behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the April 20, 2011, submittal and the portions of the March 22, 2011, submittal concerning changes to the District's stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting requirements because the Commonwealth has demonstrated that these changes are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0004. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Wong, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Wong can be reached by phone at (404) 562-8726 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In this rulemaking, EPA is approving certain changes related to the District's stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting requirements in Regulation 1.06 1 in the March 22, 2011, and April 20, 2011, SIP revisions. This regulation provides the District with the authority to require emissions monitoring at stationary sources and requires certain sources to maintain emissions records and provide annual emissions statements to the District. It does not impose any emissions limits or control requirements on any emissions source. The March 22, 2011, submission also included changes to Jefferson County Regulation 1.02—Definitions; Regulation 3.01—Ambient Air Quality Standards; Regulation 3.02—Applicability of Ambient Air Quality Standards; Regulation 3.03—Definitions; Regulation 3.04—Ambient Air Quality Standards; and Regulation 3.05—Methods of Measurement. EPA approved these changes, with the exception of the requested addition of certain definitions in Regulation 1.02, on December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87815).2 The March 22, 2011, submission also included changes to Regulation 1.07—Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions and Emergencies. EPA approved the changes to Regulation 1.07 on June 10, 2014 (79 FR 33101). The April 20, 2011, submission revises only Regulation 1.06.

    1 In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson County governments merged and the “Jefferson County Air Pollution Control District” was renamed the “Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District.” However, each of the regulations in the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP still has the subheading “Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County.” Thus, to be consistent with the terminology used in the SIP, EPA refers throughout this notice to regulations contained in Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP as the “Jefferson County” regulations.

    2 EPA did not approve the addition of definitions for the terms “acute noncancer effect,” “cancer,” “carcinogen,” and “chronic noncancer effect,” because these definitions are not related to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). See 81 FR 87815.

    II. EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's SIP Revisions A. March 22, 2011, Submittal

    The March 22, 2011, SIP submission contains a version of Regulation 1.06 adopted by the District on June 21, 2005 (referred to as “Version 7” by the District) and a version of Regulation 1.06 adopted by the District on September 21, 2005 (referred to as “Version 8”). The version currently incorporated into the SIP is referred to as “Version 6” (District effective on December 15, 1993). See 65 FR 53660 (October 23, 2001). Collectively, Versions 7 and 8 change the heading of Regulation 1.06 to “Stationary Source Self-Monitoring, Emissions Inventory Development, and Reporting,” and change aspects of Section 1—“In Stack Self-Monitoring and Reporting” (including a change in the title to “In-Stack Self-Monitoring and Reporting); Section 2—“Ambient Air Monitoring”; and Section 3—“Emissions and Related Data Reporting” (including a change in the title to “Provisions for Section 4 and Section 5 Emissions Data”). The submission adds four new sections: Section 4—“Emissions Data for Criteria Pollutants, HAPs, and Ammonia”; Section 5—“Enhanced Emissions Data for Toxic Air Contaminants”; Section 6—“Certification by a Responsible Official”; and Section 7—“Confidentiality and Open Records Requirements.” The changes to the heading of Regulation 1.06, the changes to Sections 1 and 2, and the addition of Sections 6 and 7 are administrative in nature. The changes to Section 3 modify and add provisions regarding emissions reporting data requirements, methods of emissions calculations, and stationary source emissions statements, and remove outdated reporting dates; the addition of Section 4 details requirements for submitting emissions statements on an annual basis for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, ozone precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen, ammonia, and hazardous air pollutants; and Section 5 contains requirements for enhanced emissions statements for listed “toxic air contaminants.” Because the reporting of toxic air contaminants is not related to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants, EPA is not acting on Section 5.3 EPA is approving the changes to Regulation 1.06 contained in the March 22, 2011, SIP revision, with the exception of Section 5 and references to Section 5 located in Section 3, to the extent that these changes are not superseded by the changes in the April 20, 2011, submittal discussed below.

    3 The criteria pollutants are particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and ground-level ozone.

    B. April 20, 2011, Submittal

    The April 20, 2011, SIP submission contains a version of Regulation 1.06 adopted by the District on January 19, 2011 (referred to as “Version 9” by the District). After acknowledging that the District had sent Versions 7 and 8 to Kentucky for submittal to EPA, the District requests that EPA incorporate Version 9 into the SIP and identifies changes in Regulation 1.06 between Version 8 and Version 9. Version 9 revises Version 8 by changing aspects of Section 1 (including a change in the title to “Stack Monitoring and Reporting”); Section 2 (including a change in title to “Ambient Air Monitoring and Reporting”); Section 3 (including a change in the title to “Requirements for Section 4 and Section 5 Emissions Statements”); Section 4 (including a change in the title to “Emissions Statements for Criteria Pollutants, HAPs, and Ammonia”); Section 5 (including a change to the title to “Emissions Statements for Toxic Air Contaminants”); and Section 6. Version 9 also eliminates Section 7. The submitted changes clarify and streamline the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for stationary sources by deleting and combining redundant and outdated provisions. The changes to Section 4 also modify the emissions threshold for sources to submit annual emissions statements to the District. For the reasons discussed above, EPA is not acting on Section 5 or on the references to Section 5 located in Section 3.

    EPA has determined that the changes to Regulation 1.06 in the March 22, 2011, and April 20, 2011, SIP submissions are consistent with the CAA. The text of the regulation in the SIP will reflect Version 9, with the exception of Section 5 and any references to Section 5 located in Section 3.

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on June 29, 2017 (82 FR 29467), EPA proposed to approve the changes to Regulation 1.06 in the March 22, 2011, and April 20, 2011, SIP submissions as described above. The rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before July 31, 2017. EPA received no adverse comment on the proposed action.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Jefferson County Regulation 1.06—Stationary Source Self-Monitoring, Emissions Inventory Development, and Reporting, District effective on January 19, 2011, with the exception of Section 5 and any references to Section 5 located in Section 3. 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 SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.4

    4 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Kentucky's March 22, 2011, and April 20, 2011, SIP revisions as discussed in Section II, above. The text of Jefferson County Regulation 1.06—Stationary Source Self-Monitoring, Emissions Inventory Development, and Reporting in the SIP will reflect the version of the rule effective on January 19, 2011 (Version 9) with the exception of changes to Section 5 and any references to Section 5 located in Section 3.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

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

    Subpart S—Kentucky 2. In § 52.920, table 2 in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry “1.06” to read as follows:
    § 52.920 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Table 2—EPA-Approved Jefferson County Regulations for Kentucky Reg Title/subject EPA approval date Federal Register notice District
  • effective
  • date
  • Explanation
    Reg 1—General Provisions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1.06 Stationary Source Self-Monitoring, Emissions Inventory Development, and Reporting 8/28/17 [insert Federal Register citation] 1/19/2011 Revision approved except section 5 and any references to section 5 located in section 3. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-18087 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0052; FRL-9966-78-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Major New Source Review AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia state implementation plan (SIP). The revisions amend Virginia's major source New Source Review (NSR) regulations to make them consistent with the federal program. EPA is approving these revisions to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0052. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On April 18, 2017 (73 FR 18272), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of revisions to Virginia's NSR regulations. On October 16, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted a formal revision to the Virginia SIP. The SIP revision consists of amendments to the preconstruction permit requirements under VADEQ's major NSR permit program. The revision affects sources subject to VADEQ's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in areas which are in attainment with (or unclassifiable for) the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), as well as affecting sources subject to its nonattainment NSR permit program, applicable in areas not in attainment with the NAAQS. By letter dated March 1, 2017, VADEQ officially withdrew a small and specific portion of the October 16, 2015 submittal from consideration for approval into the Virginia SIP. A copy of the letter has been included in the docket for this action. Further discussion of the withdrawal is provided in section II.A of this notice.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    As discussed in the NPR, the October 16, 2015 SIP submittal revision (as amended March 1, 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the 2015 NSR SIP Revision) generally makes the Virginia Administrative Code regulations at 9VAC5 consistent with the federal NSR program at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. The specific changes to 9VAC5: (1) Allow the use of a 10-year lookback period to calculate pre-change emissions for sources other than electric utility steam generating units (EGUs); (2) allow the use of different lookback periods for different regulated NSR pollutants; (3) extend the effective period for plantwide applicability limits (PALs) to 10 years; and, (4) allow replacement units to be treated as existing units, and thus provide the ability to use baseline actual and projected actual emissions when determining applicability. Additionally, there are a number of minor changes which are strictly administrative in nature, consisting of small grammatical revisions, or re-numbering. EPA is approving VADEQ's 2015 NSR SIP Revision as a revision to the Virginia SIP because it meets the Federal requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.165, and CAA sections 110(a) and 173. Additionally, the revisions are in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.

    A. Baseline Actual Emissions

    NSR applicability is determined by comparing the pre-change emissions of the source(s) affected by the project at hand to the post-change emissions, and determining whether the net increase is “significant.” For new units, pre-change (baseline) emissions are zero. For modified units, sources must calculate baseline actual emissions (BAE). For sources other than EGUs, the Federal PSD and nonattainment NSR regulations provide for the calculation of BAE using “. . . the average rate, in tons per year, at which the emissions unit actually emitted the pollutant during any consecutive 24-month period selected by the owner or operator within the 10-year period immediately preceding either the date the owner or operator begins actual construction of the project, or the date a complete permit application is received by the reviewing authority. . .” See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv)(B) and 51.166(b)(47)(ii). VADEQ's previously approved BAE definitions, codified at 9VAC5-80 sections 1615C (PSD) and 2010C (nonattainment NSR), provided for a 5-year lookback period. The 2015 NSR SIP Revision included VADEQ's revised definitions of BAE to provide for a 10-year lookback period for non EGUs, consistent with the Federal counterpart.

    When EPA originally approved the 5-year lookback into VADEQ's nonattainment NSR and PSD programs, limited approval was granted. See 73 FR 62893, 62897 (October 22, 2008). The previous definitions of BAE at 9VAC5-80 sections 1615C and 2010C in VADEQ's June 27, 2008 SIP submittals included the 5-year lookback which EPA found approvable, despite being different from the Federal lookback period. However, VADEQ's regulations at the time in sections 1615C and 2010C also included provisions for the use of a different time period to calculate BAE if it was found to be more representative of normal operations. In our October 22, 2008 final rulemaking notice, EPA raised concerns that this provision could allow for the use of a lookback period that extended beyond the ten years allowed by the Federal programs for PSD and NSR. However, EPA noted that because VADEQ had affirmed that it was not its intention to extend the lookback period beyond ten years, a limited approval was granted. See 73 FR at 62898. In VADEQ's 2015 NSR SIP Revision submittal, the provision allowing for the use of a different lookback period if it was found to be more representative of normal operations was struck from the definition of BAE at 9VAC5-80 section 1615C, making it consistent with the federal counterpart. However, that provision was inadvertently left in the definition of BAE in the version of 9VAC5-80 section 2010C for NSR. By letter dated March 1, 2017, VADEQ officially withdrew from EPA's consideration for inclusion into the SIP the portion of the definition of BAE at section 2010C stating, “The board will allow the use of another time period upon a determination that it is more representative of normal source operation.” Thus, EPA finds the revised definition of BAE at 9VAC5-80 section 2010C (with the provision for a different lookback period stricken) fully approvable as the definition is consistent with Federal CAA requirements permitting up to a 10-year lookback. EPA expects that the sentence withdrawn from the SIP submittal will be removed from the Virginia Code as soon as practicable as Virginia affirmed in its March 1, 2017 letter, and that VADEQ will implement its NSR program consistent with the approved SIP and the Federal requirements for NSR in the interim. With this approval, EPA also removes its prior limited approval for these regulations.

    Finally, the Federal requirement for calculating BAE for PSD and NSR provide for the use of different 24-month periods for different regulated NSR pollutants. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv)(B)(4) and 51.166(b)(47)(ii)(c). VADEQ has revised the BAE definitions at 9VAC5-80 sections 1615C and 2010C, and 9VAC5-85 section 50 to be consistent with the federal requirements relating to different lookback periods for different regulated NSR pollutants. Because these revisions are consistent with federal definitions in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 for using different 24-month periods for different regulated NSR pollutants, EPA finds these revisions approvable in accordance with CAA requirements.

    B. Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs)

    Federal requirements for PALs include an effective period of ten years for the plantwide permit.1 See 40 CFR sections 51.165(f) et seq and 51.166(w) et seq. The 2015 NSR SIP Revision included amended versions of 9VAC-5-80 sections 1615C, 1865C(1)(f), 2010C, and 2144C(1)(f), as well as 9VAC5-85-50, to provide for a PAL effective period of ten years, consistent with the Federal regulations providing for a ten-year PAL effective period. In addition, the 2015 NSR SIP Revision included amended versions of 9VAC5-80 sections 1865E and 2144E and 9VAC5-85-55 to allow for the use of different 24-month periods for different regulated NSR pollutants when establishing PALs, consistent with the discussion in Section II.A of this notice. EPA finds these amended provisions approvable for the Virginia SIP because these amended regulations for PAL effective period and baseline calculations are consistent with Federal requirements for PALs in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166.

    1 A PAL is a voluntary permit option that provides the ability to manage facility-wide emissions without triggering major NSR review. The flexibility provided under a PAL facilitates the ability to respond rapidly to changing market conditions while enhancing the environmental protection afforded under the program. If facility emissions remain below a plantwide actual emissions cap (that is, an actuals PAL), then a facility can avoid major NSR permitting process when making alterations to the facility or individual emissions units that would otherwise trigger NSR permitting. In return for this flexibility, facilities must monitor emissions from all emissions units under the PAL in addition to other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    C. Replacement Units

    Finally, the 2015 NSR SIP Revision submittal added definitions of “replacement unit,” and amends the definitions of “emissions unit,” under 9VAC5-80 sections 1615C and 2010C and 9VAC5-85 section 50. The effect of these revisions is to allow replacement units to be treated as existing units when calculating pre- and post-change emissions for purposes of determining NSR applicability. VADEQ's definitions of “replacement unit” are consistent with their Federal counterparts at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxi) and 51.166(b)(32). VADEQ's amended definitions of “emissions unit” are consistent with their Federal counterparts at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vii) and 51.166(b)(7), as is VADEQ's approach to calculating pre- and post-change emissions for replacement units. Thus, EPA finds these new and amended provisions in the 2015 NSR SIP Revision approvable.

    EPA finds the revisions to 9VAC5-80 sections 1615, 1865, 2010, and 2144 and 9 VAC5-85 sections 50 and 55 (including the changes discussed herein as well as the minor administrative changes for grammatical and numbering consistency) consistent with CAA section 110(l). None of the revisions interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of any NAAQS nor interfere with reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As described in this rulemaking, the revisions to the Virginia Code in the 2015 NSR SIP Revision are consistent with federal requirements for PSD and NSR in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. Because the revisions are consistent with federal requirements for PSD and NSR permitting programs which permit construction and modifications in accordance with permitting and emission limitation requirements and address definitions for BAE and PAL effective periods, EPA does not expect any interference with the NAAQS from these revisions.

    Other specific requirements of the 2015 NSR SIP Revision and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.

    III. EPA's Response to Comments Received on the Proposed Action

    EPA received two sets of comments on the April 18, 2017 NPR. A full set of these comments is included in the docket for this final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are included herein.

    Comment: The first commenter asserts that EPA “. . . shouldn't have the right to tell States what they can and cannot do,” and further, that the States are capable of “. . . cleaning up the air.”

    EPA Response: The CAA establishes a partnership between state and Federal entities for the protection and improvement of the nation's air quality. Under CAA section 109, EPA is required to establish NAAQS for the protection of public health and welfare. Subsequent to the promulgation (or revision) of a NAAQS, states are required by CAA section 110 to adopt and submit to EPA for approval, a SIP which provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Virginia's October 16, 2015 SIP submittal met that requirement. In addition, section 110(a)(2)(C) specifically requires that state plans include a PSD and nonattainment NSR permit program as required in parts C and D of Title I of the Clean Air Act. The division of responsibilities between EPA and the states in the section 110 process was reaffirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The action being finalized today approving revisions to Virginia regulations which implement the PSD and NSR permit program required by the CAA is consistent with EPA's responsibilities as established by Congress under CAA section 110. EPA is approving the 2015 NSR SIP Revision because it complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations as discussed in the NPR and in this rulemaking action. See section 110(k) of the CAA.

    Comment: The second commenter expressed a need for clean air, and urged EPA to “(s)top trying to lower . . .” environmental standards.

    EPA Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the concern for environmental issues such as clean air and water. However, the comment is not germane or relevant to the issues in this rulemaking to bring Virginia's NSR program in line with federal NSR requirements in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. EPA has fully explained our reasons for approving VA's revisions to its NSR program in this notice and in the NPR. As discussed in the NPR, none of the revisions interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of any NAAQS nor interfere with reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, the comment lacks the required specificity and does not address any specific Virginia regulation upon which we should act differently nor address any action EPA should take differently with regards to Virginia's NSR regulations.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the 2015 NSR SIP Revision as it is in accordance with requirements in the CAA in sections 110 and 173 and with federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. Additionally, because the Virginia regulations submitted in the 2015 NSR SIP Revision correct issues related to appropriate BAE and “lookback period” in Virginia's NSR permit program for which EPA previously granted limited approval in 2008, EPA now grants full approval to Virginia's NSR permit program for PSD and NSR permitting.

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

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

    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts . . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

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

    VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the VADEQ regulations regarding definitions and permitting requirements discussed in Section II of this notice. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.2

    2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

    This action pertaining to Virginia's preconstruction permitting requirements may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 12, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries for Sections “5-50-270”, “5-50-280”, “5-80-1605” through “5-80-2240”,”5-85-50”, and “5-85-55” to read as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Epa-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation Title/subject State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP
  • citation]
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9 VAC 5, Chapter 50 New and Modified Stationary Sources [Part V] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Article 4 Standards of Performance for Stationary Sources (Rule 5-4) *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-50-270 Standard for Major Stationary Sources (Nonattainment Areas) 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-50-280 Standard for Stationary Sources (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas) 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9 VAC 5, Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Article 8 Permits—Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas 5-80-1605 Applicability 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1615 Definitions 8/13/15 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] 5-80-1625 General 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1635 Ambient Air Increments 8/17/11 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1645 Ambient Air Ceilings 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1655 Applications 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1665 Compliance with local zoning requirements 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1675 Compliance determination and verification by performance testing 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1685 Stack Heights 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1695 Exemptions 6/4/14 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1705 Control technology review 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1715 Source impact analysis 6/4/14 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1725 Air quality models 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1735 Air quality analysis 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1745 Source Information 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1755 Additional impact analysis 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1765 Sources affecting Federal class I areas—additional requirements 8/17/11 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1775 Public participation 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1785 Source obligation 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1795 Environmental impact statements 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1805 Disputed permits 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1815 Interstate pollution abatement 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1825 Innovative control technology 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1865 Actuals plantwide applicability (PAL) 8/13/15 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] 5-80-1915 Actions to combine permit terms and conditions 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1925 Actions to change permits 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1935 Administrative permit amendments 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1945 Minor permit amendments 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1955 Significant amendment procedures 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1965 Reopening for cause 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1975 Transfer of permits 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1985 Permit invalidation, revocation, and enforcement 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-1995 Existence of permit no defense 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. Article 9 PermitsMajor Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport Region 5-80-2000 Applicability 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2010 Definitions 8/13/15 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Paragraph C is revised, except that under subdivision b of the definition of “baseline actual emissions,” the sentence stating, “The board shall allow the use of another time period upon a determination that it is more representative of normal source operation,” is not in the SIP. 5-80-2020 General 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-2030 Applications 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2040 Application information required 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2050 Standards and conditions for granting permits 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2060 Action on permit application 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2070 Public participation 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2080 Compliance determination and verification by performance testing 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2090 Application review and analysis 5/1/02
  • 9/01/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2091 Source obligation 9/1/06 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-2110 Interstate Pollution Abatement 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2120 Offsets 8/17/11 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-2130 De minimis increases and stationary source modification alternatives for ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or severe in 9 VAC 5-20-204 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2140 Exemptions 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-2144 Actuals plantwide applicability limits (PALs) 8/13/15 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] 5-80-2150 Compliance with local zoning requirements 5/1/02
  • 9/01/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2170 Transfer of permits 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2180 Permit invalidation, revocation, and enforcement 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2190 Existence of permit no defense 5/1/02
  • 9/1/06
  • 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08.
    5-80-2195 Actins to combine permit terms and conditions 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-2200 Actions to change permits 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-2210 Administrative permit amendments 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-2220 Minor permit amendments 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-2230 Significant amendment procedures 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 5-80-2240 Reopening for cause 7/23/09 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] Previous approval 10/22/08. 9 VAC 5, Chapter 85 Permits for Stationary Sources of Pollutants Subject to Regulation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part III Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Actions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-85-50 Definitions 8/13/15 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] 5-85-55 Actuals Plantwide applicability limits (PALs) 8/13/15 8/28/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-17862 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0576; FRL-9966-79-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Permits, Approvals, and Registrations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to Maryland's administrative procedures for the issuance, denial, and appeal of permits issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0576. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On June 23, 2017 (82 FR 28614), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of amendments to the Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR) as a revision to the Maryland SIP. The formal SIP revision (#16-01) was submitted by Maryland on February 22, 2016.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Maryland's SIP revision submittal includes several amended administrative provisions under COMAR 26.11.02 (Permits, Approvals, and Registration) for inclusion in the Maryland SIP. Specifically, 26.11.02.07 (Procedures for Denying, Revoking, or Reopening and Revising a Permit or Approval), 26.11.02.11 (Procedures for Obtaining Permits to Construct Certain Significant Sources), and 26.11.02.12 (Procedures for Obtaining Approvals of PSD Sources and NSR Sources, Certain Permits to Construct, and Case-by-Case MACT Determinations in Accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart B) have been revised. Maryland has requested EPA add the amended provisions to the Maryland SIP.

    The amended COMAR provisions with State effective dates of December 10, 2015 address MDE's administrative processes for permit issuance and denial. Specifically, the amended COMAR provisions eliminate the “contested case” process and the Office of Administrative Hearings' adjudicatory hearing process for major permits, and substitute direct judicial review. Additionally, the revisions expand standing for challenges to those major permits, and include additional public notice requirements for certain sources. The amended COMAR provisions are described in more detail in the NPR and will not be repeated here.

    MDE's February 22, 2016 SIP submittal is consistent with all applicable requirements of the CAA and its implementing regulations. The COMAR public notice requirements meet or exceed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161. Additionally, the revisions are approvable under section 110 of the CAA (specifically section 110(a)(2)(A) and (C) and section 173 for NSR programs). Under section 110(a)(2)(C), the SIP must include a program to enforce the emission limits and control measures in a state's SIP (as required by section 110(a)(2)(A)) and must also contain a program to regulate modification/construction of sources so that the NAAQS are achieved. Section 173 requires the permits program for nonattainment NSR and requires states to have a SIP with a permit program that ensures sources are required to comply with certain things like stringent emission limitations (i.e., lowest achievable emission rates) and offsets. While having a permits program in the SIP that addresses denial or revocation of permits and addresses permit appeals does not address the required substance of a NSR program, these provisions do make the NSR program enforceable, and therefore EPA finds the SIP submission and revisions to COMAR 26.11.02 approvable under CAA sections 173 and 110(a)(2)(A) and (C). EPA finds the revisions approvable under section 110 and 173 of the CAA and the CAA's implementing regulations. In addition, because none of the revisions to COMAR 26.11.02 will affect emissions of pollutants from sources and are largely administrative in nature, EPA finds that none of the revisions to COMAR 26.11.02 will interfere with reasonable further progress, any NAAQS, or any other applicable requirements in the CAA. Thus, EPA finds the submittal is approvable for section 110(l) of the CAA.

    Other specific requirements of MDE's February 22, 2016 SIP submittal and the rationale for EPA's approval of the submittal are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving MDE's February 22, 2016 SIP submittal as a revision to the Maryland SIP. Specifically, EPA is approving revised COMAR 26.11.02.07, 26.11.02.11 and 26.11.02.12 for inclusion in the Maryland SIP in accordance with sections 110 and 173 of the CAA.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the MDE rules regarding permit issuance and denial as described in Section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

    This action pertaining to MDE's rules regarding permit issuance and denial may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 12, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries “26.11.02.07,” “26.11.02.11,” and “26.11.02.12” to read as follows:
    § 52.1070 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Regulations, Technical Memoranda, and Statutes in the Maryland SIP Code of Maryland
  • Administrative Regulations (COMAR)
  • citation
  • Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.1100
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 26.11.02 Permits, Approvals, and Registration *         *         *         *         *         *         * 26.11.02.07 Procedures for Denying, Revoking, or Reopening and Revising a Permit or Approval 12/10/15 8/28/17, [insert Federal Register citation] Previous Approval 2/27/2003, 68 FR 9012, (c) (182) *         *         *         *         *         *         * 26.11.02.11 Procedures for Obtaining Permits to Construct Certain Significant Sources 12/10/15 8/28/17, [insert Federal Register citation] Previous Approval 2/27/2003, 68 FR 9012, (c) (182) 26.11.02.12 Procedures for Obtaining Approvals of PSD Sources and NSR Sources, Certain Permits to Construct, and Case-by-Case MACT Determinations in Accordance with 40 CFR part 63, Subpart B 12/10/15 8/28/17, [insert Federal Register citation] Previous Approval 8/2/2012, 77 FR 45949 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-17865 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0184; FRL-9966-80-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; AK: Adoption Updates and Rule Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) on September 15, 2016. These revisions primarily update adoptions of Federal regulations in the Alaska SIP. The revisions also strengthen the State of Alaska's (Alaska or State) minor source permitting requirements and remove obsolete source-category specific regulations. In addition, EPA is approving SIP revisions to Alaska's general and transportation conformity regulations submitted by ADEC on March 10, 2016. The EPA is taking action only on the conformity related portions of the March 2016 submittal. The other portions of the submittal are or will be addressed in separate actions.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0184. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 10, Office of Air and Waste, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below, to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randall Ruddick, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; phone: (206) 553-1999; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background

    On March 10, 2016 and September 15, 2016, Alaska submitted SIP revisions to EPA for approval. On June 13, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the conformity portions of Alaska's March 10, 2016 submittal and all of the revisions requested in the September 15, 2016 submittal (82 FR 27031). Please see our proposed rulemaking for further explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period for this proposal ended on July 13, 2017. We received two supportive comments.

    II. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference where appropriate in Alaska's SIP, all revisions requested by Alaska on September 15, 2016 (state effective August 20, 2016) to the following provisions:

    • 18 AAC 50.010(4) (Ambient Air Quality Standards) • 18 AAC 50.020(a) (Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases) • 18 AAC 50.035(a)(3) and (a)(7) (Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by Reference) • 18 AAC 50.040(f) and (h) (Federal Standards Adopted by Reference) • 18 AAC 50.215(a)(3) (Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods) • 18 AAC 50.345(o) (Construction, Minor and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions) • 18 AAC 50.502(c), (e), (f), (f)(1)(C), (f)(5), (g), (h)(3)(A), and (h)(3)(B) (Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection) • 18 AAC 50.540 (c)(2)(A) (Minor Permit: Application) • 18 AAC 50.542(b)(5) and (d)(1) (Minor Permit: Review and Issuance)

    At Alaska's request, EPA is also removing from the SIP the following provisions that ADEC repealed as a matter of state law: 18 AAC 50.055(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(7), (a)(8), (b)(4), (b)(6), (f) (Industrial Process and Fuel-Burning Equipment) and 18 AAC 50.060 (Pulp Mills).

    Finally, EPA is approving revisions to 18 AAC 50, Article 7, Transportation Conformity, submitted by Alaska on March 10, 2016; specifically, the revisions to transportation conformity provisions in 18 AAC 50.715 and 50.720, and the removal of the general conformity provisions in 50.735.

    We have determined that the submitted SIP revisions are consistent with section 110 and part C of Title I of the CAA.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is approving regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are incorporating by reference the provisions described above in Section II. Final Action and set forth below, as amendments to 40 CFR part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 10 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    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 CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 10, 2017. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart C—Alaska 2. In § 52.70, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by: a. Revising entries 18 AAC 50.010, 18 AAC 50.020, 18 AAC 50.035, 18 AAC 50.040, 18 AAC 50.055; b. Removing entry 18 AAC 50.060; c. Revising entries 18 AAC 50.215, 18 AAC 50.345, 18 AAC 50.502, 18 AAC 50.540, 18 AAC 50.542, 18 AAC 50.715, and 18 AAC 50.720; and d. Removing entry 18 AAC 50.735.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 52.70 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Alaska Regulations and statutes State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations Alaska Administrative Code Title 18 Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50 Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50) 18 AAC 50 Article 1. Ambient Air Quality Management *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air Quality Standards 8/20/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (8). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.020 Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases 8/20/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.035 Documents, Procedures and Methods Adopted by Reference 8/20/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (a)(6) and (b)(4). 18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by Reference 8/20/16; 11/9/14 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (j), and (k). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.055 Industrial Processes and Fuel-Burning Equipment 8/20/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (d)(2)(B). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50 Article 2. Program Administration *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods 8/20/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (a)(4). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50 Article 3. Major Stationary Source Permits *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.345 Construction, Minor and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions 8/20/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (b), (c)(3), and (l). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50 Article 5. Minor Permits 18 AAC 50.502 Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection 8/20/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.540 Minor Permit: Application 8/20/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] 18 AAC 50.542 Minor Permit: Review and Issuance 8/20/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (b)(2). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50 Article 7. Transportation Conformity *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.715 Interagency Consultation Procedures 3/2/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] 18 AAC 50.720 Public Involvement 3/2/16 8/28/17
  • [Insert Federal Register citation]
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-17861 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0394; FRL-9966-96-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Approval of an Alternative Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the State of Maryland's state implementation plan (SIP). Maryland requested EPA incorporate by reference into the Maryland SIP a Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) order that establishes an alternative volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standard for National Gypsum Company (NGC) that will ensure that this source remains a minor stationary source of VOCs. EPA is approving the SIP submittal incorporating by reference MDE's order for NGC in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on November 27, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 27, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0394 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory A. Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On June 24, 2016, MDE submitted a formal revision to the Maryland SIP. The SIP revision consists of a request to incorporate by reference a MDE departmental order that establishes an alternative VOC emission standard for NGC as it appears in the permit-to-construct conditions issued by MDE in order to ensure that it remains a minor stationary source of VOCs. The alternative VOC emissions limit of 195 pounds per operating day with at least a 99% overall VOC control efficiency will achieve a stringent emissions discharge reduction and is more stringent than any established standard for reasonably available control technology (RACT) for major stationary sources of VOCs in COMAR 26.11.19. Under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.06.06E—“Exceptions,” a source may request an exception to a VOC emissions limit from MDE if the source is not subject to new source review (NSR) and if the source is unable to comply with COMAR 26.11.06.06B—“Control of VOC from Installations.”

    Located in the Baltimore ozone nonattainment area, NGC is a wallboard manufacturing facility that emits both nitrogen oxides (NOX) and VOCs. Ground level ozone is formed when NOX and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight. NOX and VOC are referred to as ozone precursors and are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including motor vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, and area wide sources, such as consumer products and lawn and garden equipment. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to ozone. These effects are more pronounced in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. In response to this scientific evidence, EPA promulgated in 1979 the first ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), the 0.12 part per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).1 Under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the Baltimore Area (specifically, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County, and Howard County) was designated as a severe nonattainment area. 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. 62 FR 38856. Under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Baltimore Area was designated as a moderate nonattainment area. 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). Later, the Baltimore Area was reclassified as a serious nonattainment area for the 1997 8-ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 4901 (February 1, 2012). On March 27, 2008 (78 FR 16436), EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS). Under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Baltimore Area was designated as a moderate nonattainment area. 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).

    1 EPA had previously promulgated a NAAQS for total photochemical oxidants.

    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA announced its revocation of the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS for all purposes and for all areas in the country, effective June 15, 2005. In the final rulemaking, EPA determined that certain nonattainment planning requirements would continue to be in effect under the revoked standard for nonattainment areas under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including RACT. Under the anti-backsliding provisions codified at 40 CFR 51.905, the Baltimore Area remains subject to the anti-backslide obligations for the revoked 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Since the Baltimore Area was designated as a severe nonattainment area for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, all sources in the nonattainment area emitting greater than 25 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or NOX are major stationary sources.

    NGC is a major stationary source of NOX, but is not a major stationary source for VOCs. NGC consists of two major manufacturing lines, Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2. When NGC modified Board Kiln No. 1 to manufacture new silicone wallboard products, NGC needed limits to remain a minor stationary source of VOC (under 25 tpy) and avoid NSR review under COMAR 26.11.17 as the production of the new silicone products would emit more VOC emissions from the source. However, NGC was subject to VOC emission limits in COMAR 26.11.06.06. Since Board Kiln No. 1 was installed before May 12, 1972, COMAR 26.11.06.06B(1)(a) would require its VOC emissions to be less than 200 pounds per day (lbs/day) unless the discharge is reduced by 85 percent or more overall. As Board Kiln No. 2 was installed in April 1998, it is subject to COMAR 26.11.06.06B(1)(b), which, except as provided in COMAR 26.11.06.06E, limits the discharge of VOC to not exceed 20 lbs/day unless the discharge is reduced by 85 percent or more overall. As a result of the increased production, NGC was unable to comply with COMAR 26.11.06.06B and is thus eligible to apply for an exception under COMAR 26.11.06.06E. However, exceptions under COMAR 26.11.06.06E require EPA approval of specific emission limitations and operating practices in order to become federally enforceable. MDE entered a consent order with NGC on March 11, 2016 establishing alternative VOC emissions limits for Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2 that would become part of NGC's permit to operate. The permit restrictions approved for NGC, based on MDE's order, will ensure that NGC remains a federally enforceable minor stationary source with appropriate emission limitations and practices and not subject to NSR for its modification to Board Kiln No. 1.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    In the June 24, 2016 SIP submittal, MDE included an order authorizing an alternative VOC emissions standard per COMAR 26.11.06.06E in connection with the construction permit modification MDE prepared for NGC. MDE requested EPA incorporate by reference the order with the alternative VOC emissions standard into the Maryland SIP. The MDE order for NGC requires that NGC comply with the following alternative VOC standards and other conditions: (1) NGC shall install a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) on Board Kiln No. 1, which is designed to achieve at least a 99% overall VOC control efficiency, or not greater than 0.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of VOC in the flue gases exiting the RTO (which is more restrictive for Board Kiln No. 1); (2) total VOC emissions from Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2, combined, shall not exceed 195 pounds per operating day (which is more stringent than Board Kiln No. 1 subject to 200 lbs/day and Board Kiln No. 2 subject to 20 lbs/day, separately); (3) total premises wide VOC emissions shall be less than 25 tons in any rolling 12-month period to ensure that the total net VOC emissions increase resulting from the modification of Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2, combined, is less than the nonattainment NSR threshold, which is 25 tons in any rolling 12-month period; (4) NGC shall vent the flue gases from Board Kiln No. 1 through the RTO prior to discharging to the atmosphere when manufacturing silicone XP water resistant wallboard and eXP water resistant wallboard; (5) the temperature of the combustion zone of the RTO shall be maintained to at least the minimum temperature established during the most recent stack emissions tests demonstrating compliance with the daily VOC emission limit of 195 pounds per operating day; (6) NGC shall manufacture regular wallboard (any wallboard that is not silicone XP water resistant wallboard or eXP water resistant wallboard and is not prohibited for production by MDE) only in Board Kiln No. 2; and (7) NGC shall monitor daily production for each type of wallboard and shall calculate total daily VOC emissions from Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2 to demonstrate compliance with the alternative VOC emission standard of 195 pounds per operating day.

    After evaluating this SIP revision, EPA concludes that this SIP revision continues to address and minimize VOC emissions in the Baltimore ozone nonattainment area and will result in reduced VOC emissions from NGC. The alternative VOC emissions limit for NGC will significantly reduce emissions of VOC, an ozone precursor. EPA finds this Order to be a SIP strengthening measure in accordance with requirements in section 110 of the CAA. EPA finds that the submittal strengthens the State of Maryland's SIP and is in accordance with section 110 of the CAA including 110(a) and 110(l) as the SIP revision will not interfere with reasonable further progress, attainment of any NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirements as more VOC emissions reduction is expected from this limit on NGC's VOC emissions.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Maryland June 2016 SIP revision submittal which requests incorporation by reference of a MDE order that includes an alternative VOC emission standard for NGC as the revision meets requirements in CAA section 110. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on November 27, 2017 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 27, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Maryland's Department of the Environment Order No. 510-0233-6-0646 and -1569. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update of the SIP compilation.2

    2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 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 issue of the Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.

    This action, which approves Maryland's SIP revision incorporating by reference a MDE order establishing a VOC emission standard for NGC, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 12, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding the entry for National Gypsum Company at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1070 Identification of plan.

    (d) * * *

    EPA Approved State Source-Specific Requirements Name of source Permit number/type State effective date EPA approval date Additional
  • explanation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * National Gypsum Company (NGC) Departmental Order 03/11/16 8/28/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] The SIP approval includes specific alternative volatile organic compound emission limits and other conditions for NGC as established by the Departmental Order.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18086 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0086; FRL-9966-93-Region 4] Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation of the Knoxville 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 20, 2016, Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Knoxville Area” or “Area”) to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan and a reasonably available control measures (RACM) determination for the Area. EPA is approving Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area and incorporating it into the SIP; approving Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Knoxville Area (maintenance plan), including the associated motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and direct PM2.5 for the years 2014 and 2028, and incorporating it into the SIP; and redesignating the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0086. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, in the 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. Sean Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043, or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM2.5. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average NAAQS at 15.0 μg/m3 but revised the 24-hour NAAQS to 35 μg/m3, based again on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.

    On November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 58688, EPA designated the Knoxville Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. All 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS areas were designated under title I, part D, subpart 1 (hereinafter “Subpart 1”). Subpart 1 contains the general requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant governed by a NAAQS and is less prescriptive than the other subparts of title I, part D. On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586), EPA promulgated its Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, in which the Agency provided guidance for state and tribal plans to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule and the final rule entitled “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, “1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rules”) to EPA on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of Subpart 1, rather than the particulate matter-specific provisions of title I, part D, subpart 4 (hereinafter “Subpart 4”).

    On June 2, 2014, EPA published a rule entitled “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS”. See 79 FR 31566. In that rule, the Agency responded to the D.C. Circuit's January 2013 decision by identifying all PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as “moderate” nonattainment areas under Subpart 4, and by establishing a new SIP submission date of December 31, 2014, for moderate area attainment plans and for any additional attainment-related or nonattainment new source review plans necessary for areas to comply with the requirements applicable under Subpart 4. Id. at 31567-70.

    Based on its moderate nonattainment area classification, Tennessee was required to submit a SIP revision addressing RACM pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) for the Area. Although EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) RACM must be approved into a SIP prior to redesignation of an area to attainment once that area is attaining the NAAQS, EPA is approving Tennessee's RACM determination and incorporating it into its SIP pursuant to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015).

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24621), EPA proposed to: (1) Approve Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) and incorporate it into the SIP; (2) approve Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (maintenance plan), including the associated 2014 and 2028 MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX for the Knoxville Area, and incorporate it into the SIP; and (3) redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.1 The details of Tennessee's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the NPRM. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed action.

    1 In a notice published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2017, EPA announced that it had found the MVEBs for the Knoxville Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS adequate for transportation conformity purposes. See 82 FR 13347.

    II. What are the effects of these actions?

    EPA's approval of Tennessee's redesignation request changes the legal designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a portion of Roane County for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. Approval of Tennessee's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area through 2028 and Tennessee's RACM determination into the Tennessee SIP. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations. The maintenance plan also includes NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2014 and 2028 for the Knoxville Area. The 2014 and 2028 PM2.5 MVEBs are 1.22 tons per day (tpd) and 0.67 tpd, respectively. The 2014 and 2028 NOX MVEBs are 42.73 tpd and 19.65 tpd, respectively.

    III. Final Actions

    EPA is taking the following final actions: (1) Approving Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) and incorporating it into the SIP; (2) approving Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (maintenance plan), including the associated 2014 and 2028 MVEBs for the Knoxville Area, and incorporating it into the SIP; and (3) redesignating the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a portion of Roane County for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs of 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 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

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

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

    Subpart RR—Tennessee 2. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by adding entries for “2006 24-hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette Area” and “RACM determination for the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2220 Identification of plan.

    (e) * *

    EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette Area Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a portion of Roane County (the area described by U.S. Census 2000 block group identifier 47-145-0307-2.) 12/20/2016 8/28/2017 [Insert citation of publication] RACM determination for the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a portion of Roane County (the area described by U.S. Census 2000 block group identifier 47-145-0307-2.) 12/20/2016 8/28/2017 [Insert citation of publication]
    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    4. In § 81.343, the table entitled “Tennessee—2006 24-Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS” is amended by revising the entry for “Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN:” to read as follows:
    § 81.343 Tennessee. Tennessee—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 2 Type Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN: 8/28/2017 Attainment Anderson County Attainment Blount County Attainment Knox County Attainment Loudon County Attainment Roane County (part) Attainment The area described by U.S. Census 2000 block group identifier 47-145-0307-2. *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted. 2 This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18088 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 160422356-7283-02] RIN 0648-XF630 International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 2017 Commercial Pacific Bluefin Tuna Fishery Closure in the Eastern Pacific Ocean AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is temporarily closing the U.S. commercial fishery for Pacific bluefin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) through December 31, 2017, because the 2017 catch limit of 425 metric tons has been exceeded. This action is necessary to prevent the fishery from further exceeding the applicable catch limit established by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in Resolution C-16-08 (Measures for the Conservation and Management of Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean).

    DATES:

    The rule is effective 12 a.m. local time August 28, 2017, through 11:59 p.m. local time December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Celia Barroso, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-432-1850.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission signed in 1949 (Convention). The Convention provides an international agreement to ensure the effective international conservation and management of highly migratory species of fish in the IATTC Convention Area. The IATTC Convention Area, as amended by the Antigua Convention, includes the waters of the EPO bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N. and 50° S. parallels, and the 150° W. meridian.

    Fishing for Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO is managed, in part, under the Tuna Conventions Act as amended (Act), 16 U.S.C. 951-962. Under the Act, NMFS must publish regulations to carry out recommendations of the IATTC that have been approved by the Department of State (DOS). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the Act appear at 50 CFR part 300, subpart C. These regulations implement IATTC recommendations for the conservation and management of highly migratory fish resources in the EPO.

    In 2016, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-16-08, which establishes a 600 metric ton (mt) catch limit of Pacific bluefin tuna applicable to U.S. commercial fishing vessels in 2017 and 2018, combined. Additionally, catch is not to exceed 425 mt in a single year; therefore, the annual limit in 2017 is 425 mt. With the approval of the DOS, NMFS implemented this catch limit by notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Act (82 FR 18704, April 21, 2017, and codified at 50 CFR 300.25).

    NMFS, through monitoring landings data and other available information, has determined that the 2017 catch limit has been exceeded. In accordance with 50 CFR 300.25(g), this Federal Register notice announces that the U.S. fishery for Pacific bluefin tuna in the IATTC Convention Area will be closed starting on August 28, 2017, through the end of the 2017 calendar year. The 2018 catch limit will be calculated by subtracting the amount caught in 2017 from 600 mt.

    During the closure, a U.S. fishing vessel may not be used to target, retain on board, transship, or land Pacific bluefin tuna captured in the IATTC Convention Area, except as follows: Any Pacific bluefin tuna already on board a fishing vessel on August 28, 2017, may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, provided all Pacific bluefin tuna are landed within 14 days after the effective date of this rule, that is, no later than September 11, 2017.

    Classification

    NMFS has determined there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This action is based on the best available information and is necessary for the conservation and management of Pacific bluefin tuna. Compliance with the notice and comment requirement would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because NMFS would be unable to ensure that the 2017 Pacific bluefin tuna catch limit is not further exceeded, and that biennial limit of 600mt is also not exceeded. For the same reasons, NMFS has also determined there is good cause to waive the requirement for a 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    This action is required by § 300.25(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18157 Filed 8-23-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 161025999-7662-02] RIN 0648-BG42 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS partially approves and implements through regulations measures included in the Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment, as adopted by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and approved by NMFS on June 13, 2017. The purpose of this action is to prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain forage species until the Council has adequate opportunity and information to evaluate the potential impacts of forage fish harvest on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem. This final rule implements an annual landing limit, possession limits, and permitting and reporting requirements for Atlantic chub mackerel and certain previously unmanaged forage species and species groups caught within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters; allows vessels to transit Mid-Atlantic Federal waters with forage species caught in other areas; and identifies measures that can be revised through a future framework adjustment.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 27, 2017

    ADDRESSES:

    The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment that describes the Council's preferred management measures and other alternatives considered and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the all alternatives considered. Copies of the Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Species Omnibus Amendment, including the EA, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis are available from: Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street Dover, DE 19901. The supporting documents are also accessible via the Internet at:

    https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0013 https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2017/April/17ForageOmnibusAmendmentpr.html or http://www.mafmc.org/actions/unmanaged-forage.

    Copies of the small entity compliance guide prepared for this action are available from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, or available on the internet at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/forage/index.html.

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and by email to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9141, fax (978) 281-9135.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 8, 2016, the Council adopted final measures under the Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment. On November 23, 2016, the Council submitted the amendment and draft EA to NMFS for preliminary review, with final submission of the draft amendment and EA on March 20, 2017. NMFS published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on March 28, 2017 (82 FR 15311), informing the public that the Council had submitted this amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. NMFS published a proposed rule that included implementing regulations on April 24, 2017 (82 FR 18882). The public comment period for both the Notice of Availability and proposed rule ended on May 30, 2017.

    The Council developed the Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment and the measures described in the proposed rule under the discretionary provision specified in section 303(b)(12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.; 1853(b)(12)). The objective of this action is to prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain forage species until the Council has adequate opportunity and information to evaluate the potential impacts of forage fish harvest on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem. The two primary purposes of this action are to: (1) Advance an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the Mid-Atlantic through consideration of management alternatives that would afford protection to currently unmanaged forage species by regulating landings and/or possession of those species; and (2) consider management alternatives to address data collection and reporting of landings of currently unmanaged forage species. Details concerning the development of these measures are contained in the EA prepared for this action and summarized in the preamble of the proposed rule, and, therefore, are not repeated here.

    Disapproved Measures Designation of Bullet and Frigate Mackerel as Ecosystem Component (EC) Species

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act permits NMFS to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures proposed by the Council based only on whether the measures are consistent with the fishery management plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Following the consideration of public comment and additional review of this action and supporting analysis, NMFS concluded that the inclusion of bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species is inconsistent with National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act regarding the use of best available scientific information.

    The best available scientific information presented for this amendment does not support the proposed designation of bullet and frigate mackerel as forage for species managed by the Council. Because this action is an amendment to the Council's existing FMPs, the species that are included in the amendment must be a forage species and also must be linked to one or more FMP fisheries, either as prey for the managed species or as bycatch in the managed fisheries. This is consistent with our understanding of Council intent, as documented in the March 2016 Fishery Management Action Team meeting summary. As a result, NMFS asserted that this amendment needed to establish a logical connection between the species proposed as forage and at least one managed species. During the development of this action and in the proposed rule, NMFS advised the Council and the public that bullet and frigate mackerel do not meet the criteria used to identify forage for species regulated by the Council.

    Although the Council did not rely exclusively on the forage criteria identified by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), as summarized in Table 5 of the EA, the forage criteria served as the initial foundation for evaluating species to include in this action. These criteria establish general parameters, including adult size, trophic level, and whether the species comprised a considerable portion of the diet of other predators, among other criteria, to determine whether a species is forage for another species. The adult sizes of bullet and frigate mackerel (20-24 inches (51-61 cm) total length) are larger than the size ranges identified for other forage species included in this action, which average 7 inches (18 cm) in total length. Thus, the adult sizes of bullet and frigate mackerel are more than double the forage fish size range recommended by the Council's SSC (1-10 inches (2-25 cm) total length). Bullet and frigate mackerel feed on most of the other forage species included in this amendment, confirming their higher tropic classification. This is inconsistent with the SSC's classification criteria that forage species are typically low to mid tropic level species that consume very small prey less than 1-inch long (2-2.5 cm), typically zooplankton and or small benthic invertebrates. While the amendment includes some information suggesting that these species are consumed by large pelagic species such as tunas, billfish, and sharks, it is not clear what portion of the diet of these species that bullet and/or frigate mackerel represent. As a result, while bullet and frigate mackerel may be prey for large pelagic species, it is unknown whether they constitute forage for large pelagic species in the marine ecosystem, as defined by the SSC. Finally, even applying the lower forage thresholds used by the Council (i.e., the presence of forage species in at least two stomach content samples over a 40-year period of NMFS surveys), there is no scientific evidence presented in this amendment that indicates bullet and frigate mackerel are forage for managed species. Thus, the best available scientific information does not support the classification of these species as forage for managed species, and NMFS determined that including them would be inconsistent with National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    Other criteria considered by the Council to classify forage species for this amendment include the presence of such species as bycatch in managed fisheries and the potential for commercial exploitation. While there is evidence that a small amount of bullet mackerel was caught with bottom trawl gear that resulted in the landings of species managed by the Council, the information and analysis indicate co-occurrence that is not necessarily indicative of systematic bycatch in those fisheries. Many unmanaged species co-occur with managed species, but that does not make them forage for the managed species or susceptible to routine bycatch in targeted fisheries for managed species. NMFS concluded that available information is not sufficient to suggest that bullet mackerel are systematically caught as bycatch in managed fisheries. With no dealer reported landings of bullet mackerel, and an average of less than 7,500 lb (3.4 mt) of frigate mackerel reported landed each year between 1996-2015, including several years when less than 1,000 lb (0.4 mt) was landed, there is limited information to support that these species are caught as bycatch in managed fisheries or will be subject to commercial exploitation at this time.

    Finally, the best available information does not support the Council's determination that bullet and frigate mackerel should be classified as EC species based upon the National Standard Guidelines at 50 CFR 600.305. As defined in § 600.305(d)(11) and noted during the April 2016 Council meeting, EC species should not include target stocks that are caught for sale or personal use. However, the amendment includes evidence that bullet and frigate mackerel are caught and sold by commercial vessels and are retained for personal use as bait by recreational fisheries in Federal waters, creating competing interests and conflicts among user groups, both of which are criteria that could exclude consideration of bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species under the National Standard Guidelines. The Council could consider alternative mechanisms to protect and manage these and other similar species, such as little tunny/false albacore and bonito, for the benefits they provide to the marine ecosystem and important commercial and recreational fisheries within the Mid-Atlantic. This is consistent with the May 19, 2017, discussion by the Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee (EOPC). If the Council believes that these species require conservation and management, a small tuna FMP or a broader ecosystem based management action may be a more effective vehicle to manage these species than an amendment predicated on protecting forage for managed species. This would allow the Council to develop a management approach and measures that would reflect the unique role these species play in the marine ecosystem, and to better integrate the concerns of and impacts to the predominantly recreational fishery for these species. Such an approach is supported by not only the EOPC, but also by members of the public commenting on this action.

    Approved Measures 1. Designation of Certain Mid-Atlantic Forage Species as Ecosystem Component Species

    This action designates the following forage species and species groups as EC species in all of the FMPs under the Council's jurisdiction:

    • Anchovies (family Engraulidae) • Argentines (family Argentinidae) • Greeneyes (family Chlorophthalmidae) • Halfbeaks (family Hemiramphidae) • Herrings and Sardines (family Clupeidae) • Lanternfishes (family Myctophidae) • Pearlsides (family Sternoptychidae) • Sand lances (family Ammodytidae) • Silversides (family Atherinopsidae) • Cusk-eels (order Ophidiiformes) • Atlantic Saury-Scomberesox saurus • Pelagic Mollusks (except Sharptail Shortfin Squid) • Copepods, Krill, Amphipods, and Other Species Under One Inch as Adults

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains no requirements to designate EC species. To minimize confusion and reflect the purpose of this action to manage forage species, these species will be collectively referred to as “Mid-Atlantic forage species” for the remainder of this preamble discussion and in the final regulatory text.

    2. Permit and Reporting Requirements

    This action requires any commercial vessel, operator, or dealer that lands or sells Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel to comply with existing Federal permit and reporting requirements. Any commercial fishing vessel that possesses, lands, or sells Mid-Atlantic forage species or chub mackerel caught in Federal waters from New York through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (an area referred to as the “Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit” below and in the regulations), must be issued a valid commercial fishing vessel permit issued by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO). Any commercial vessel operator fishing for or possessing these species in or from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit must obtain and retain on board a valid operator permit issued by GARFO. Similarly, a seafood dealer purchasing and selling these species must obtain a valid commercial seafood dealer permit issued by GARFO.

    Vessel operators and dealers are required to report the catch and sale of these species and species groups on existing vessel trip reports (logbooks) and dealer reports, respectively. NMFS and Council staff prepared a species identification guide to help vessel operators and dealers differentiate among these forage species and identify the codes needed to accurately report these on vessel logbooks and dealer reports. We will send this guide to all vessels that landed in Mid-Atlantic ports during 2016 and make it available on both the GARFO and Council Web sites (see ADDRESSES) and through your local NMFS port agent office (see https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sed/portagents/portagents.html).

    The permit and reporting requirements mentioned above for vessels, operators, and dealers fishing for, possessing, and purchasing chub mackerel are effective through December 31, 2020, unless overwritten by another Council or NMFS action. This is because the Council is currently developing potential long-term measures and assembling the scientific information necessary to consider formally integrating chub mackerel as a stock in the fishery managed under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP.

    3. Annual Landing Limits

    This action sets an annual landing limit of 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt) for Atlantic chub mackerel. All landings of chub mackerel in ports from Maine through North Carolina will count against the annual landings limit. NMFS will close the directed fishery for chub mackerel in the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit once the Regional Administrator determines that 100 percent of the chub mackerel annual landing limit has been harvested. After the closure of the directed fishery, vessels would be subject to the chub mackerel incidental possession limit described below. As in the case for the permit and reporting requirements, the chub mackerel annual landing limit is effective through December 31, 2020, unless overwritten by a future Council or NMFS action.

    4. Possession Limits

    This action establishes a 1,700-lb (771-kg) combined possession limit for all Mid-Atlantic forage species (see the list of EC species listed above) caught within the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit. Initially, commercial vessels are not subject to a possession limit for chub mackerel. However, once the chub mackerel annual landing limit is harvested, NMFS will implement a 40,000-lb (18,144-kg) chub mackerel possession limit in the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit. As in the case for the annual landing limit, the chub mackerel incidental possession limit will expire on December 31, 2020, unless overwritten by a future Council or NMFS action.

    5. Transit Provision

    This action allows a vessel issued a Federal commercial fishing permit from GARFO that possesses Mid-Atlantic forage species and chub mackerel in excess of the proposed possession limits to transit the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit in certain circumstances. The following three conditions must be met to transit through the management unit: (1) Forage species were harvested outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit; (2) the vessel lands in a port that is outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit (i.e., north of New York or south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina); and (3) all gear is stowed and not available for immediate use. The transiting provision for vessels possessing chub mackerel is effective through December 31, 2020, unless overwritten by a future Council or NMFS action.

    6. Administrative Measures

    This action allows the Council to modify the list of EC species, annual landing limits, and possession limits for Mid-Atlantic forage species and chub mackerel through a framework adjustment to applicable FMPs rather than through an amendment to these FMPs. Although the preamble of the proposed rule did not indicate that the list of EC species could be modified through a framework action, the proposed regulations did indicate that the list of Mid-Atlantic forage species (the same as the EC species listed above) could be modified in a framework action.

    Under this action, the Council establishes a policy that requires use of an experimental fishing permit (EFP) to support any new fishery or the expansion of existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage species. The Council would consider the results of any experimental fishing activity and other relevant information before deciding how to address future changes to the management of fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage species. Pursuant to existing regulations at § 648.12, the Regional Administrator already consults with the Council's Executive Director before approving any exemption under an EFP request.

    Comments and Responses

    During the public comment periods for the Notice of Availability and the proposed rule for this amendment, we received 11,519 comments from 11,510 individuals. This included 11,484 form letters from Pew Charitable Trusts; comments from representatives of three commercial fishing entities/groups (Seafreeze Ltd., Lund's Fisheries Incorporated, and the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)); comments from three environmental organizations (Pew Charitable Trusts, Wild Oceans, and the Audubon Society); and comments from the Office of Management and Budget. Two individuals expressed general opposition to the rule, while 11,506 individuals supported the action and 11 individuals supported some, but not all of the proposed measures. The following discussion summarizes the issues raised in the comments that were relevant to this action and associated NMFS's responses. Please note that, pursuant to section 304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, when NMFS considers the responses to comments, NMFS may only approve or disapprove measures proposed in a particular fishery management plan, amendment, or framework adjustment, and may not change or substitute any measure in a substantive way.

    General Comments

    Comment 1: One individual expressed disappointment that the Council waited six years to protect forage species, indicating that the Council should have acted sooner.

    Response: We are satisfied with the amount of time that the Council took to develop this action, and contend that the measures implemented by this final rule will provide meaningful protection to important forage species in the Mid-Atlantic. The Council identified the need to protect forage species as part of its strategic planning and visioning process in 2011, and initiated this action in 2014, shortly after receiving guidance about how to manage forage species from its SSC. Because this was the first management action to specifically manage forage species in the Atlantic Ocean, the Council conducted extensive outreach to solicit public input during the development of this action. This action represents proactive steps by the Council to protect previously unmanaged forage species and prevent the initiation or further development of commercial fisheries on these species as it collects information on the importance of these species to fisheries communities and the ecosystem.

    Comment 2: One individual was concerned that the proposed measures would not become effective until 2020.

    Response: The comment is incorrect; all measures approved in this final rule are effective on September 27, 2017. As noted above, the Atlantic chub mackerel measures will expire on December 31, 2020, three years after implementation, to incentivize the Council to develop long-term management measures to formally integrate this species into the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP.

    Comment 3: Two individuals were concerned that climate change, including ocean acidification, will destroy fish habitat and negatively impact forage fish, sea birds, and marine mammals, with one individual suggesting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should protect our air and water.

    Response: Recent NMFS studies recognize that certain species are more vulnerable than others to climate change and associated effects to habitat. While stock assessments and management measures can consider the impacts of climate change, NMFS is not authorized to regulate the sources of air and water pollution referenced in these comments. The EPA develops regulations and policies aimed at reducing air and water pollution.

    Comment 4: One individual suggested that forage fish should be limited to processing as food, not fish meal or fish oil.

    Response: Because the Council did not impose any restrictions on the use or processing of forage species in this action, NMFS does not have the authority to impose such restrictions through this final rule.

    Comment 5: Seven individuals, along with 11,484 form letters from Pew, expressed general support for this action. Three individuals indicated that forage fish are a vitally important component to the ecology of our oceans through their role of energy transferors and as the primary food source for larger fish, marine mammals, and humans. A separate comment from Pew indicated that forage fish are the bedrock of coastal economies, jobs, recreation, and seafood, and that protecting them through this action is an important step toward ecosystem based fisheries management. The Audubon Society commented that seabirds depend on forage species, especially small, schooling fish that are protected by this amendment. They provided a list of 15 seabird species that rely upon forage fish for 20 percent or more of their diet. The 11,484 Pew form letters indicated that, due to reductions in the availability and catch rates of other stocks, vessels will target unmanaged species, which would negatively affect those species and predators of those species. Similarly, one individual indicated that this amendment would help prevent the commercial fishing industry from fishing down the food web.

    Response: We agree that forage species are an integral part of the marine ecosystem, and that excessive catch of forage species will have negative impacts not only on predators such as fish, sea birds, and marine mammals, but also on fishing communities that rely upon predators of forage species for important commercial and recreational fisheries. That is why the Council initiated this action as part of its efforts to integrate ecosystem approaches to fisheries management. We recognize that restrictions in targeted fisheries potentially could increase fishing effort on other unmanaged species, such as the forage species listed in this action. By preventing the creation of new or expansion of existing commercial fisheries on previously unmanaged forage species, this action minimizes the risk of fishing down the food web.

    Comment 6: One individual recommended that we use caution when allowing additional fishing to occur on forage species until we know more about the impacts of fishing on these species. Another individual indicated that NMFS must achieve a sustainable balance between species regeneration and harvest of forage fish.

    Response: One of the primary purposes of this action is to maintain recent catch levels until we can collect additional data on the catch and landings of these previously unmanaged forage species. The data collected through the vessel logbook and dealer reporting requirements implemented by this action will help the Council make more informed decisions in the future regarding the appropriate levels of catch for such species. Further, this action adopts a policy that requires use of an EFP and subsequent Council review before considering any new fisheries or expansion of existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage species.

    Comment 7: One individual was concerned that by managing these species, fishermen would be held responsible for declines in abundance. This individual suggested that there are no plans to examine how environmental factors affect forage species or predators, and that this action does not assess the impacts of factory ships on the ecosystem, only impacts of small boats.

    Response: We disagree with this commenter. The EA prepared for this action includes a cumulative effects analysis (Section 7.6 of the EA), as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. This analysis considers the impacts of non-fishing activities such as climate change, point and non-point source pollution, shipping, dredging, storm events, and other factors on the physical and biological dimensions of the environment. The impacts of these non-fishing activities are considered in the development of all fishery management actions. Further, environmental factors along with mortality resulting from fishing activities are considered when developing a stock assessment and determining the appropriate levels of catch for managed species. Depending on the species, fishing may not be the primary source of mortality, and this will influence the measures necessary to sustain that species. This action will help collect data to help determine the scale of fishing mortality on these forage species should the Council determine that these species require conservation and management in the future. Finally, while the EA does not explicitly evaluate the impacts of “factory ships” on the ecosystem, Section 7 of the EA evaluates the impacts of fishery operations of all sizes of vessels that fish within Federal waters on all aspects of the marine environment, including target and non-target species, endangered species, marine mammals, and habitat.

    Comment 8: One individual suggested that all fisheries management decisions must be guided by peer reviewed scientific analysis to drive rational decisions.

    Response: Fishery management decisions must be based upon the best scientific information available, as required by National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The best available scientific information can take many forms and does not always take the form of peer reviewed analysis. All fishery measures are developed, analyzed, and reviewed by Council and NMFS staff, external scientists, academic researchers, industry representatives, and others with scientific expertise.

    Comment 9: Seafreeze Ltd. expressed concern that measures were not based on a scientific threshold for determining whether a species is a forage species in this amendment. It noted that the Council did not use the SSC's dietary threshold in its definition of forage species (forage species represent greater than five percent of an animal's diet for more than five years), suggesting that a lack of a threshold or consistent diet data calls into question the purpose of this action.

    Response: As noted above, the Council did not rely exclusively upon the SSC's forage species criteria to inform its decision to include forage species for this action, although the SSC's criteria did serve as the starting point for Council consideration. Section 4.2 of the EA prepared for this action notes that there were “no uniform quantitative metrics available to compare the trophic level of a number of forage species, or to assess the number of trophic linkages for each species.” Instead, the Council determined how to best evaluate the SSC's and other criteria used to define forage species. The Council used alternative dietary criteria due to the diversity of diet for many species. Specifically, the SSC's dietary criteria would have reduced the list of forage species to only a few species, many of which are not found in Federal waters. As a result, any proposed measures to protect such a limited list of forage species would not likely have been effective or offer much benefit to managed species important to commercial and recreational fisheries managed by the Council. Accordingly, the Council used a lower threshold to be more inclusive of forage species in this action, while still prioritizing protection for species that had the greatest potential to support future large-scale commercial fisheries.

    Comment 10: The Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) was critical of the amendment's purpose and goals, indicating that there is no biological benefit from the proposed measures. This group suggested that NMFS should delay the implementation of this final rule until measurable goals can be identified.

    Response: We disagree that there is no biological benefit from this action. Although this action maintains existing catch levels for forage species, in the long-term, this action will help maintain sustainable populations of several forage species for various predators, including Council-managed predators, protected species predators, and seabirds. The purposes of this action are to prevent the expansion of existing and the development of future commercial fisheries for certain forage species while the Council collects the information it needs to assess the impacts to existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem. The measures implemented by this action do exactly that. Because data have not been collected on the catch of these species, it is difficult to quantitatively assess the impacts of forage species on predators, the marine ecosystem, and communities at this time. Therefore, implementation of reporting requirements through this final rule will provide the information the Council and NMFS need to assess catch of these species and develop more effective measures in the future, as necessary.

    Comment 11: Seafreeze Ltd. and Lund's Fisheries Incorporated are concerned that state permitted vessels do not have similar restrictions on the catch of forage species, with Lund's Fisheries suggesting that this creates two classes of fishermen and penalizes those with a Federal permit from selling forage species. Lund's Fisheries suggested that NMFS and the Council should encourage the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to take similar action to protect forage species in state waters.

    Response: Neither the Council, nor NMFS has the authority to require states to implement similar measures to protect forage species. Because each state has a seat on the Council, and the Council has already expressed its interest in protecting forage species, it is incumbent upon each state to decide whether it should implement similar forage species measures within waters under their jurisdiction. We disagree that this penalizes Federal permit holders from selling catch of these species, as it implements possession limits that reflect 99 percent of trip-level commercial landings of forage species over the past 20 years. Therefore, based on recent fishing operations, vessels issued a Federal permit should not be negatively affected by these possession limits.

    Comment 12: One individual suggested that this action violates NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A because the Council did not examine whether this action would set a precedent for future action with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about future consideration. He also stated that the use of discretionary authority under section 303(b)(12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage chub mackerel sets a precedent regarding the regulation of commercially targeted species outside of a FMP and without adequate oversight. In contrast, Pew supports the use of such discretionary authority until the species can be formally integrated as a species within the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP.

    Response: The commenter cites text related to the determination of significance of NOAA's actions as required by the NEPA from an outdated version of NAO 216-6A dated May 20, 1999. The new version of NAO 216-6A became effective April 22, 2016, and contains no such language. In fact, the new version authorizes the development of a companion manual to set policy and procedures for complying with NEPA. That companion manual became effective January 13, 2017, and contains the text referenced by the commenter, but in the context of evaluating the use of a categorical exclusion under extraordinary circumstances. Since the Council developed an EA in support of this action, this policy guidance is not relevant to this action. The Council will evaluate the significance of any future action it may develop for chub mackerel as it develops measures for that particular action.

    We disagree that the use of section 303(b)(12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to develop chub mackerel measures under this action sets a precedent that would allow commercial fishing to occur outside of a FMP and without oversight. Section 303(b) specifically authorizes the development of such discretionary measures as part of a FMP. Therefore, this section allows for increased management and oversight of commercial fisheries by the Council, not the opposite. We agree with Pew in that it represents a viable mechanism to proactively implement interim measures to manage this species while the Council develops the required provisions to formally manage chub mackerel as a stock in an FMP.

    Comment 13: Two individuals recommended that this action should include river herring, with one citing the millions of taxpayer dollars spent to restore habitat and breeding streams that would be wasted if these species are not protected. He indicated that NMFS needs to collect more data and protect river herring in the ocean. Three individuals suggested that this action should also include Atlantic menhaden as a forage species.

    Response: Because the Council did not consider managing river herring or Atlantic menhaden as forage species under this action, NMFS does not have the authority to add these species through this final rule. The Council has already considered ways to manage river herring as part of Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP and associated specifications since 2014. Specifically, the Council established a river herring and shad catch cap in the mackerel fishery and established reporting requirements to monitor such catch in the mackerel fishery. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) already manages Atlantic menhaden because this species is predominantly found in nearshore waters and is prosecuted by state fisheries. The Council could consider management measures for these species and other species through a future action, as appropriate.

    Ecosystem Component Species

    Comment 14: One individual indicated that, until there is sufficient science on the population dynamics and trophic significance of all forage species originally listed (presumably by the SSC or Fishery Management Action Team), none of the species should be omitted from this action. Another individual indicated that the Council should be precautionary and implement catch limits for all forage species.

    Response: Section 4.2 of the EA describes the background for how the Council determined which forage species to include in this action. The Council did not intend to prohibit the harvest of all unmanaged forage species. Instead, the Council identified a list of prioritized forage species to minimize the burden of the proposed new regulations on existing managed fisheries. In selecting the taxa to include in this amendment, the Council prioritized some species due to their importance as prey for “socially and economically important species” and their perceived potential to become the target of large-scale commercial fisheries. The Council could add forage species through a future action as more information becomes available, or as needed to achieve conservation and management objectives.

    Comment 15: Seafreeze Ltd. and the GSSA oppose the approval of halfbeaks, scaled sardine, Atlantic thread herring, and Spanish sardine as EC species in this action, because there is no link as forage or bycatch between these species and fisheries managed by the Council. They contend that none of these species have been found in NMFS observer data for trawls, gillnets, or hook gear resulting in landings of Council managed species; that they have not been found in the stomachs of Council managed species in NMFS surveys; and that they fail to meet all the criteria for listing as an EC species and the forage species criteria developed by the SSC.

    Response: We disagree that these species fail to meet the criteria for listing as an EC species, as the amendment provides information that supports the determination that these species are eligible to be listed as EC species based on the criteria outlined in the National Standard Guidelines at § 600.305. The Council relied in part on the SSC's definition of forage species as well as other criteria in its proposed list of forage species to manage as EC species in this action. Section 6.1 of the EA identifies the rationale for the inclusion of each species in this action. While halfbeaks have not been found in the stomach contents of managed species in NMFS surveys, they were documented as forage for bluefish, a Council-managed species, in another source. Further, the Council notes that halfbeaks are often caught in Florida and are commonly used as bait in Mid-Atlantic recreational fisheries, making them vulnerable to potential future commercial exploitation. There is sufficient evidence that other unmanaged herrings and sardines are consumed as forage for many Council-managed species, are often documented as bycatch in managed fisheries, and are potentially vulnerable to commercial exploitation due to market demand.

    Comment 16: The GSSA, Seafreeze Ltd., and Lund's Fisheries Incorporated opposed the inclusion of bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species for the same reasons we highlighted in the proposed rule. However, Pew and Wild Oceans, along with 11,496 Pew form letters, supported the inclusion of these species, highlighting their importance to ecosystems and coastal communities who directly or indirectly depend upon the catch or use of these species. One individual disagreed with our assertion that the trophic level of these species is too high, suggesting that trophic linkages are truncated in pelagic ecosystems. Pew noted that bullet and frigate mackerel are vulnerable to commercial exploitation because they school in predictable areas, while Wild Oceans contended that protecting bullet and frigate could reduce predation on managed species by providing more prey for common predators. Supporters also noted that many significant keystone predators such as large pelagic species (tuna, billfish, swordfish, dolphinfish (dorado) and sharks) feed on these mackerel, and a failure to protect them could cause trophic cascading (e.g., effects on species higher or lower in the food chain as a result of changes in prey or predator abundance) and indirect and unpredictable effects (presumably reduced abundance) on large pelagic species.

    Response: As noted above, we maintain our original contention that the best available information does not support the classification of bullet and frigate mackerel as forage species in this action and that they are not related to species managed by the Council. Public comments did not provide additional information that would change this determination. The SSC did not differentiate trophic structure criteria based on where organisms were found, and the commenter did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant such a differentiation. Although Wild Oceans asserts that these species are vulnerable to commercial exploitation because they school in predictable areas, Pew notes that these species are less vulnerable to commercial fishing, particularly trawl gear, because of their fast swimming speed. This, in conjunction with minimal commercial landings of these species over the past 20 years, suggests that these species are not vulnerable to commercial exploitation at this time. While we acknowledge that bullet and frigate are prey for large pelagic species, available information does not confirm that bullet and frigate mackerel constitute a substantial component of the diet of large pelagic species, or that they are forage for managed species. Therefore, there is insufficient information in the amendment to conclude that failure to protect these species through this action would cause trophic cascading or negative impacts on managed species or large pelagic predators.

    Comment 17: Pew asserts that a nexus between forage species and regulated species is not required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, noting that the discretionary authority provided in section 303 can be used to conserve target and non-target species considering ecological factors that may affect fish populations. They also cite the National Standard 1 guidelines in highlighting that maintaining adequate forage may prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield. Wild Oceans indicates that these Guidelines allow flexibility to achieve ecosystem goals, including those in the Council's ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) guidance document, and that failure to include these species is contrary to NMFS' ecosystem based fishery management (EBFM) policy.

    Response: We agree that section 303 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the Council with the discretion to implement measures for target and non-target species for ecosystem considerations. As noted in the scoping document for this action and Council meetings during the development of this action, the intent of this action was to maintain an adequate biomass of forage species to allow for abundant populations of Council-managed predators, as well as to integrate ecosystem considerations into the FMP. NMFS determined that forage species considered in this action must have an ecological or operational (bycatch) linkage with Council-managed species in order to maintain consistency with the Council's intent to maintain an adequate biomass of forage species to allow for abundant populations of Council-managed predators of the forage species. Although the description of the purpose and need for this action, as included in the EA, indicated that the Council was also integrating an ecosystem approach to management into this action, the Council did so by protecting forage species; this action was not intended to be a comprehensive ecosystem management action. NMFS must evaluate this action within the context in which it was developed, and using the best available information, which, as noted above, is not sufficient to justify inclusion of bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species under this action.

    We also agree that the National Standard 1 Guidelines allow the Council to consider forage and EC species when determining optimum yield and the greatest benefit to the nation. However, it is important to note that the National Standard 1 Guidelines apply to stocks in the fishery that the Council determines require conservation and management. By proposing to manage bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species, the Council has implicitly determined that such species do not require conservation and management measures at this time pursuant to the National Standard Guidelines at § 600.305(c)(5) and are, therefore, not stocks in the fishery. Accordingly, the National Standard 1 Guidelines do not apply to these species. That notwithstanding, if the Council believes that these species require conservation and management in the future, a small tuna FMP or a broader ecosystem based management action may be a more effective vehicle to manage these species than an amendment predicated on protecting forage for managed species. Finally, despite the disapproval of bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species in this action, we contend that the Council's use of discretionary authority to designate certain other previously unmanaged forage species as EC species and to implement measures to protect against the further exploitation of these species is consistent with both the Council's EAFM guidance document and the NMFS EBFM policy.

    Permitting and Reporting Requirements

    Comment 18: Pew, Lund's Fisheries Incorporated, and the GSSA support the use of existing permitting requirements for this action. They, along with one individual and the 11,484 respondents to the Pew form letter, also support the use of existing reporting requirements to collect additional data on these species. Another individual indicated that the proposed reporting requirements would not collect acceptable data, but did not suggest why. The Office of Management and Budget indicated that this action would have no effect on any current information collections.

    Response: The existing permitting and reporting requirements are necessary to collect information to effectively monitor and manage the catch of forage species. The permitting and reporting requirements allow us to identify which vessels are catching chub mackerel and Mid-Atlantic forage species, how much they are catching of each species or species group, where and when the catch occurs, and what gear is used to catch these species. This information could then be used to monitor catch against the chub mackerel annual landing limits, enforce possession limits, and provide information necessary to assess the status of the stock and develop potential future management measures, as necessary. Thus, this final rule implements the permitting and reporting requirements for Mid-Atlantic forage species.

    Annual Landing and Possession Limits

    Comment 19: One individual suggested that NMFS should stop all fishing for forage species, stating that, without limits, commercial vessels will harvest them until endangered and overfished. Respondents to the Pew form letter and another individual suggested that forage fish quotas should be set to prevent overfishing.

    Response: We do not agree that it is necessary to stop all fishing for forage species or impose quotas for all species to prevent overfishing or prevent such species from becoming endangered. We do not know much about the status of these species. As noted in the response to the previous comment, the information collected through measures implemented by this final rule will: Provide the information the Council needs to effectively monitor the catch of these species; allow the Council and NMFS to evaluate the potential impacts of existing catch levels on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem; and allow the Council and NMFS to set appropriate future landing limits to prevent overfishing, as necessary.

    Comment 20: One individual recommended that NMFS implement a 5.25 million-lb (2,381-mt) annual landing limit for chub mackerel because it reflects the historical fluctuation of the chub mackerel market, is more consistent with the market's overall direction, avoids implementing artificial constraints, allows equal access to the market, and facilitates competition in the market rather than consolidating control by a select group of large vessels. He notes that implementing the proposed 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt) limit artificially caps the market and could increase landing price to the disproportionate benefit of large vessels. Lund's Incorporated and the GSSA support the higher limit, stating there is no evidence that the higher limit would harm the stock and that it would reduce discards until the SSC can set a reasonable biologically-based limit in a future action. They also suggest the ecosystem management approach should consider changing species distribution, including the increasing availability of a species like chub mackerel in setting landing limits. In contrast, Pew and another individual felt that the proposed limit is too high and that the limit should be set lower as a precaution because NMFS does not have adequate data about biological and ecological status of stock, what fishing level is sustainable, and the impacts of recent increased fishing.

    Response: Although chub mackerel landings have fluctuated greatly since 1996, landings since 2013 are substantially higher than previous years. The Council considered several alternative annual landing limits for chub mackerel, including the average landing amount from 1996-2015 (900,127 lb (408 mt)), average landings from 2011-2015 (1.75 million lb (794 mt), and the highest landings recorded in 2013 (5.25 million lb (2,381 mt)). Instead, the Council adopted a 2.86 million-lb (1,297-mt) annual landing limit to reflect more recent average landings between 2013-2015. This limit accounts for variations in resource availability and catch, and is higher than the five-year average landings, but lower than the highest landings recorded in 2013. This compromise is not only consistent with the purpose of this action to maintain existing catch levels, but also with the principles advocated by several commenters to mirror recent landings trends, reduce discards, and set a precautionary catch limit while the Council develops long-term measures in a subsequent action.

    We disagree that the chub mackerel annual landing limit implemented by this final rule implements artificial constraints, prevents equal access to the resource or markets, or disproportionately benefits large vessels. Even without constraints, the landing price for chub mackerel has been highly variable and not necessarily correlated with landing amounts since 1996. The EA suggests that landings amounts and associated price is affected by several variables, including availability of chub mackerel and other species. Therefore, the Council and NMFS cannot determine how any one particular measure affects market prices at this time. All vessels of all sizes have equal access to available chub mackerel under this action. Section 8.11.4.3 of the EA describes the economic impact analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). That analysis indicates that between 2006 and 2015, 63 small businesses and affiliated entities reported fishing revenues from forage species affected by this action. All of these entities had average annual sales during 2013-2015 that were less than $11 million, which is the level of annual fishery revenue used to determine small entities under the RFA. Thus, all entities affected by this action are classified as small businesses. Further, this analysis concluded that all proposed measures, including the chub mackerel annual landing limit, would not place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities.

    Comment 21: Seafreeze Ltd., Lund's Fisheries Incorporated, and the GSSA support the 40,000-lb (18-mt) chub mackerel possession limit once the annual landing limit is reached. Pew indicated that the limit is not supported by the best available science or a methodology similar to the limit used to derive the possession limit for other EC species, suggesting that it should be lower to prevent a directed fishery. Another individual stated the possession limit is higher than annual chub mackerel landings before 2003, and suggested that it disproportionately benefits larger vessels. He recommended that if NMFS implements the 2.86 million-lb (1,297-mt) chub mackerel annual landing limit, NMFS should also implement the 10,000-lb (4.5-mt) possession limit because the annual limit and possession limit must be similarly restrictive to equitably restrict all fisheries regardless of size and better align with the amendment's purpose of preventing fishery expansion. He also noted that the lower possession limit reduces discards, but does not provide enough incentive to target the species.

    Response: To be consistent with the methodology used by the Council to determine the possession limit for EC species, the Council would have had to adopt a much higher chub mackerel possession limit than the proposed 40,000-lb (18-mt) limit. The limit for EC species was based on the 99th percentile of dealer-reported landings of these species from 1997-2015. That limit was meant to maintain existing catch levels for those species. In contrast, as noted by Pew, the chub mackerel limit was intended to prevent directed fishing. Accordingly, using a similar methodology is not appropriate, as the trip limit should reduce incentives to target chub mackerel.

    The Council chose a 40,000-lb (18-mt) limit because that is the capacity of a bait truck, and limiting landings to that amount reduces economic incentives to target chub mackerel, while allowing vessels to land smaller, incidental amounts of chub mackerel to minimize discards. The Council considered a 10,000-lb (4.5-mt) possession limit based on average trip-level landings from 1996-2015, but that would likely result in higher discards due to larger volumes of chub mackerel caught by larger vessels in recent years. The possession limit selected is separate and distinct from the annual landings limit, and does not need to be proportional to have the desired effect of reducing incentives to target this species once the annual landing limit is caught. We recognize that the possession limit is higher than annual landings before 2003, but note that landings since 1996 have been highly variable, ranging from 479 lb (217 kg) to 5.25 million lb (2,381 mt). Contrary to what one commenter indicated, this possession limit would actually benefit smaller capacity vessels more than larger capacity vessels because it is less likely to constrain landings once the annual landing limit is reached. Section 5.2.3 of the EA states that there is a substantial range in landing amounts within the fishery, concluding that the amount of chub mackerel catch which is truly incidental is not well understood and is likely different for larger, faster vessels than for smaller, slower vessels.

    Comment 22: Pew, Lund's Fisheries Incorporated, and the GSSA support the proposed 1,700-lb (771-kg) limit for EC species.

    Response: This final rule implements this trip limit for approved EC species.

    Comment 23: The Executive Director of the New England Fishery Management Council highlighted that existing regulations for the Northeast Multispecies FMP only allow the retention of certain species in exempted fisheries within the Southern New England Regulated Mesh Area, an area that overlaps with the proposed Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit. He suggested that the final rule clarify that the most restrictive possession limit would apply to vessels subject to the Northeast Multispecies FMP that are fishing within the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit.

    Response: We agree. This was an oversight, and we made the appropriate changes to the regulatory text at § 648.351(a) in this final rule.

    Transit Measure

    Comment 24: Seafreeze Ltd. supported the transit measure, but both Lund's Fisheries Incorporated and the GSSA opposed the measure, stating that it creates an unfair competitive situation by allowing harvesters from other jurisdictions to be exempted from possession limits imposed on Mid-Atlantic harvesters.

    Response: The transit measure would only apply to catch of Mid-Atlantic forage species outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit (Mid-Atlantic Federal waters), which is outside of the jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. In addition, because transiting vessels must have their gear stowed when transiting the Management Unit, this measure is unlikely to negatively impact Mid-Atlantic forage species, managed species, or other predators. Further, this measure was developed mostly to address the targeting of chub mackerel within the Gulf of Mexico that are landed in Rhode Island. Since this action counts all chub mackerel landed in New England ports against the chub mackerel annual landing limit, impacts to chub mackerel are minimized. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to manage a stock throughout its range. Therefore, when considering integrating chub mackerel into the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP in a future action under development, the Council will need to consider the species range as it develops measures for that action, including potentially reconsidering the need for this transiting provision.

    Other Administrative Measures

    Comment 25: Pew Charitable Trusts noted that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council manages some species to the Virginia/North Carolina border and others to the latitude of Cape Hatteras. Pew supported extending the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit to Cape Hatteras to ensure there is no gap in the management of these species within the jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

    Response: We agree and have implemented the Management Unit as proposed.

    Comment 26: The GSSA and Lund's Fisheries Incorporated supported the ability to revise landing and possession limits through a future framework adjustment action.

    Response: The framework measures have been implemented through this action.

    Comment 27: The GSSA, Lund's Fisheries Incorporated, and the Pew Charitable Trusts support the use of an EFP to support the development of any new or expanded fishery for forage species. Pew indicated that the Council should emulate the more formal EFP review process adopted by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council as part of its Comprehensive Ecosystem Based Amendment 1 and documented in its Council Operating Procedure 24 before opening or expanding any fishery. Pew also recommended that NMFS should prohibit new or expanded fishing on EC species until full Federal management is in place that protects their role as prey in the ecosystem, and that the Council should evaluate whether a species is in need of conservation and management before allowing new or expanded fisheries for these species.

    Response: The Council documented its intent to require an EFP and subsequent review through the adoption of this action. Existing regulations at § 648.12 require the Regional Administrator to consult with the Council's Executive Director before approving any exemptions to the Council's FMPs. The regulations revised by this action have already expanded that consultation requirement to specifically include exemptions that would contribute to the development of a new fishery or the expansion of existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage species and chub mackerel. Therefore, the Council has already developed a protocol similar to the Pacific Council's Operating Procedure 24.

    At § 648.14(w), this action implements a prohibition against vessels possessing more Mid-Atlantic Forage Species and chub mackerel than authorized in § 648.351. As a result, no additional prohibition is needed to prevent the expansion of existing fisheries or the development of new fisheries for these species. In addition, fisheries for Mid-Atlantic Forage Species cannot develop or expand without a future Council or NMFS action, which must be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. Thus, both the Council and NMFS will evaluate whether a stock requires conservation and management, and NMFS will ensure that all measures developed for those stocks in the future, including measures to achieve optimum yield, are consistent with applicable law, before approving any new or expanded fisheries for EC species.

    Comment 28: Pew Charitable Trusts recommended that NMFS update the list of authorized fisheries and gear in § 600.725(v) to ensure that no fishery on unmanaged forage species emerges without the knowledge of NMFS and the Council.

    Response: As noted in Section 5.3.2.2 of the EA for this action, the list of authorized fisheries and gear at § 600.725(v) already includes two general categories of commercial fisheries for which the legal harvest of unmanaged forage species would be allowed without advanced notification to the Council. The Council considered modifying this list as part of this action, but instead implemented more discrete possession limits for forage species. As a result, NMFS cannot unilaterally implement such changes through this final rule. It is likely that any fishery for other unmanaged forage species would be detected through existing data collections such as the vessel logbook or dealer reports. For example, landings of several species of previously unmanaged forage species included in this action (anchovies, argentines, sand lances, silversides, chub mackerel, and frigate mackerel) were recorded in Federal dealer reports. This prompted the Council to develop appropriate management measures through this and the follow-on chub mackerel amendment. Similar action can be taken in the future for other species, as appropriate.

    Impact Analysis

    Comment 29: One individual indicated that the negative socioeconomic impacts of this action will be offset by the positive socioeconomic impacts of maintaining healthy populations of forage species. He also noted that the amendment should consider the recreational and professional diving communities in the socioeconomic impact analysis, as a lack of forage species could negatively affect seal and predator populations, which are important drivers of demand for diving and spearfishing trips. The comment included a statement from another individual who estimated that dive shops in the Greater Boston Area cater to up to 1,500 divers each year and have yearly revenues of $3-4 million.

    Response: We agree that the benefits of maintaining recent catch levels of certain forage species through measures implemented by this action outweigh the potential costs associated with annual landing limits and possession limits. The EA prepared for this action included a description of the affected environment in Section 6, and an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed measures on components of the affected environment, including marine predators such as fish species, marine mammals, and fishing communities, in Section 7. The socioeconomic impact analysis focused on commercial and recreational fishery participants because they are the entities most likely to be affected by this action. That analysis did not evaluate impacts to diving operations because diving operations are only indirectly affected by this action and are not subject to these measures. As a result, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require consideration of the impacts to non-regulated entities such as the diving industry. However, this action should provide benefits to the diving community similar to the benefits that would accrue to the recreational fishery in that it will protect forage species from further commercial exploitation, which will help maintain predator and seal populations important to the spearfishing and diving communities.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We have made several changes to the proposed regulations, including changes as a result of public comment and our decision to disapprove the inclusion of bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species. Some of these changes are administrative in nature, clarify the new or existing management measures, or correct inadvertent omissions in the proposed rule. All of these changes are consistent with section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)), which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These changes are listed below in the order that they appear in the regulations.

    In this final rule's amendments to § 648.2, paragraph (a)(14) is renumbered as (a)(12), and paragraph (a)(15) is renumbered as (a)(13), to reflect the disapproval of the inclusion of bullet and frigate mackerel as Mid-Atlantic forage species in this final rule.

    The regulations at §§ 648.4(a)(15), 648.5(a)(2), 648.6(a)(1), 648.7(a)(1) and (b)(1)(i), and 648.351(d) were revised by adding language specifying that the vessel permit, operator permit, dealer permit, reporting requirements, and transiting provision for vessels fishing for and possessing Atlantic chub mackerel and dealers purchasing chub mackerel are effective through December 31, 2020, as intended.

    In § 648.351(a), the phrase “Unless otherwise prohibited under § 648.80,” was added to the beginning of this paragraph to reference the possession restrictions of Northeast multispecies exempted fisheries. As noted above in Comment 23, the Executive Director of the New England Fishery Management Council indicated that the proposed possession limits for Mid-Atlantic forage species would inadvertently allow a vessel to possess species that are not explicitly authorized for exempted fisheries implemented under the Northeast Multispecies FMP.

    Classification

    The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that the Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of the fisheries managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. NMFS received two comments regarding the socioeconomic impacts of this action (see Comments 20 and 29 above). In Comment 20, the commenter suggested that this action would artificially cap the market that could disproportionately benefit large vessels. However, as noted above, because all entities affected by this action are small businesses, this action could not place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. Comment 20 pertained to the diving community, a group that is not subject to the regulations under this action. Accordingly, no comments were received that would change the certification that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

    This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the OMB control numbers listed below. Public reporting burden for these collections of information, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information, are estimated to average, as follows:

    1. Initial Federal vessel permit application, OMB# 0648-0202, (45 minutes/response);

    2. Initial Federal dealer permit application, OMB# 0648-0202, (15 minutes/response);

    3. Initial Federal operator permit application, OMB# 0648-0202, (60 minutes/response);

    4. Vessel logbook report of catch by species, OMB# 0648-0212, (5 minutes/response); and

    5. Dealer report of landings by species, OMB# 0648-0229, (4 minutes/response).

    Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office at the ADDRESSES above, and email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 648.2, add definitions for “Atlantic chub mackerel” and “Mid-Atlantic forage species” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 648.2 Definitions.

    Atlantic chub mackerel means Scomber colias.

    Mid-Atlantic forage species means the following species and species groups:

    (1) Anchovies (family Engraulidae), including but not limited to the following species:

    (i) Striped anchovy-Anchoa hepsetus.

    (ii) Dusky anchovy-Anchoa lyolepis.

    (iii) Bay anchovy-Anchoa mitchilli.

    (iv) Silver anchovy-Engraulis eurystole.

    (2) Argentines (family Argentinidae), including but not limited to the following species:

    (i) Striated argentine-Argentina striata.

    (ii) Pygmy argentine-Glossanodon pygmaeus.

    (3) Greeneyes (family Chlorophthalmidae), including but not limited to the following species:

    (i) Shortnose greeneye-Chlorophthalmus agassizi.

    (ii) Longnose greeneye-Parasudis truculenta.

    (4) Halfbeaks (family Hemiramphidae), including but not limited to the following species:

    (i) Flying halfbeak-Euleptorhamphus velox.

    (ii) Balao-Hemiramphus balao.

    (iii) Ballyhoo-Hemiramphus brasiliensis.

    (iv) False silverstripe halfbeak/American halfbeak/Meek's halfbeak-Hyporhamphus meeki.

    (5) Herrings and Sardines (family Clupeidae). With the exception of other herring and sardine species managed under this part, including American shad, Atlantic herring, blueback herring, hickory shad, and river herring/alewife, as defined in this section, the following herring and sardine species are Mid-Atlantic forage species:

    (i) Round herring-Etrumeus teres.

    (ii) Scaled sardine-Harengula jaguana.

    (iii) Atlantic thread herring-Opisthonema oglinum.

    (iv) Spanish sardine-Sardinella aurita.

    (6) Lanternfishes (family Myctophidae), including but not limited to the following species:

    (i) Horned lanternfish-Ceratoscopelus maderensis.

    (ii) Dumril's headlightfish-Diaphus dumerilii.

    (iii) Crocodile lanternfish-Lampanyctus crocodilus.

    (iv) Doflein's false headlightfish-Lobianchia dofleini.

    (v) Spotted lanternfish-Myctophum punctatum.

    (7) Pearlsides (family Sternoptychidae), including but not limited to the following species:

    (i) Atlantic silver hatchetfish-Argyropelecus aculeatus.

    (ii) Muller's pearlside-Maurolicus muelleri.

    (iii) Weizman's pearlside-Maurolicus weitzmani.

    (iv) Slope hatchetfish-Polyipnus clarus.

    (8) Sand lances (family Ammodytidae), including but not limited to the following species:

    (i) American/inshore sand lance-Ammodytes americanus.

    (ii) Northern/offshore sand lance-Ammodytes dubius.

    (9) Silversides (family Atherinopsidae), including but not limited to the following species:

    (i) Rough silverside-Membras martinica.

    (ii) Inland silverside-Menidia beryllina.

    (iii) Atlantic silverside-Menidia menidia.

    (10) Cusk-eels (order Ophidiiformes), including but not limited to the following species:

    (i) Chain pearlfish-Echiodon dawsoni.

    (ii) Fawn cusk-eel-Lepophidium profundorum.

    (iii) Striped cusk-eel-Ophidion marginatum.

    (11) Atlantic saury-Scomberesox saurus.

    (12) Pelagic mollusks and cephalopods, excluding sharptail shortfin squid (Illex oxygonius), but including the following pelagic mollusc species:

    (i) Neon flying squid-Ommastrephes bartramii.

    (ii) European flying squid-Todarodes sagittatus.

    (iii) Atlantic brief squid-Lolliguncula brevis.

    (iv) Bobtail squids (family Sepiolidae), including but not limited to the following species:

    (A) Odd bobtail squid-Heteroteuthis dispar.

    (B) Big fin bobtail squid-Rossia megaptera.

    (C) Warty bobtail squid-Rossia palpebrosa.

    (D) Lesser bobtail squid-Semirossia tenera.

    (E) Butterfly bobtail squid-Stoloteuthis leucoptera.

    (v) Sea angels and sea butterflies (orders Gymnosomata and Thecosomata).

    (vi) Tuberculate pelagic octopus-Ocythoe tuberculata.

    (13) Species under one inch as adults, including but not limited to the following species groups:

    (i) Copepods (subclass Copepoda).

    (ii) Krill (order Euphausiacea).

    (iii) Amphipods (order Amphipoda).

    (iv) Ostracods (class Ostracoda).

    (v) Isopods (order Isopoda).

    (vi) Mysid shrimp (order Mysidacea).

    3. In § 648.4, add paragraph (a)(15) to read as follows:
    § 648.4 Vessel permits.

    (a) * * *

    (15) Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel. Any commercial fishing vessel must have been issued and have on board a valid commercial vessel permit issued in accordance with this paragraph (a)(15) to fish for, possess, transport, sell, or land Mid-Atlantic forage species or Atlantic chub mackerel in or from the EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c). The vessel permit requirements specified in this paragraph (a)(15) for a commercial fishing vessel fishing for, possessing, transporting, selling, or landing Atlantic chub mackerel are effective through December 31, 2020. A vessel that fishes for such species exclusively in state waters is not required to be issued a Federal permit.

    4. In § 648.5, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 648.5 Operator permits.

    (a) General. (1) Any operator of a vessel issued a permit, carrier permit, or processing permit for, and that fishes for or possesses, the species listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, must have been issued, and carry on board, a valid operator permit for these species. An operator's permit issued pursuant to part 622 or part 697 of this chapter, satisfies the permitting requirement of this section. This requirement does not apply to operators of recreational vessels.

    (2) Following are the applicable species: Atlantic sea scallops, NE multispecies, spiny dogfish, monkfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, black sea bass, or Atlantic bluefish, harvested in or from the EEZ; tilefish harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Tilefish Management Unit; skates harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Skate Management Unit; Atlantic deep-sea red crab harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Red Crab Management Unit; or Atlantic chub mackerel and Mid-Atlantic forage species, as defined at § 648.2, harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c). The operator permit requirements specified in this paragraph (a)(2) for an operator of a vessel fishing for and possessing Atlantic chub mackerel are effective through December 31, 2020.

    5. In § 648.6, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 648.6 Dealer/processor permits.

    (a) * * *

    (1) All dealers of NE multispecies, monkfish, skates, Atlantic herring, Atlantic sea scallop, Atlantic deep-sea red crab, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, bluefish, tilefish, and black sea bass; Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog processors; Atlantic hagfish dealers and/or processors, and Atlantic herring processors or dealers, as described in § 648.2; must have been issued under this section, and have in their possession, a valid permit or permits for these species. A dealer of Atlantic chub mackerel or Mid-Atlantic forage species, as defined in § 648.2, harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c), must have been issued and have in their possession, a valid dealer permit for any species issued in accordance with this paragraph. The dealer permit requirements specified in this paragraph (a)(1) for dealers purchasing Atlantic chub mackerel are effective through December 31, 2020.

    6. In § 648.7, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:
    § 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a)(1) Detailed report. Federally permitted dealers, and any individual acting in the capacity of a dealer, must submit to the Regional Administrator or to the official designee a detailed report of all fish purchased or received for a commercial purpose, other than solely for transport on land, within the time period specified in paragraph (f) of this section, by one of the available electronic reporting mechanisms approved by NMFS, unless otherwise directed by the Regional Administrator. The dealer reporting requirements specified in this paragraph (a)(1) for dealers purchasing or receiving for a commercial purpose Atlantic chub mackerel are effective through December 31, 2020. The following information, and any other information required by the Regional Administrator, must be provided in each report:

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) The owner or operator of any vessel issued a valid permit or eligible to renew a limited access permit under this part must maintain on board the vessel, and submit, an accurate fishing log report for each fishing trip, regardless of species fished for or taken, on forms supplied by or approved by the Regional Administrator. The reporting requirements specified in this paragraph (b)(1)(i) for an owner or operator of a vessels fishing for, possessing, or landing Atlantic chub mackerel are effective through December 31, 2020. If authorized in writing by the Regional Administrator, a vessel owner or operator may submit reports electronically, for example by using a VMS or other media. With the exception of those vessel owners or operators fishing under a surfclam or ocean quahog permit, at least the following information and any other information required by the Regional Administrator must be provided: Vessel name; USCG documentation number (or state registration number, if undocumented); permit number; date/time sailed; date/time landed; trip type; number of crew; number of anglers (if a charter or party boat); gear fished; quantity and size of gear; mesh/ring size; chart area fished; average depth; latitude/longitude (or loran station and bearings); total hauls per area fished; average tow time duration; hail weight, in pounds (or count of individual fish, if a party or charter vessel), by species, of all species, or parts of species, such as monkfish livers, landed or discarded; and, in the case of skate discards, “small” (i.e., less than 23 inches (58.42 cm), total length) or “large” (i.e., 23 inches (58.42 cm) or greater, total length) skates; dealer permit number; dealer name; date sold, port and state landed; and vessel operator's name, signature, and operator's permit number (if applicable).

    7. In § 648.12, revise the introductory text to read as follows:
    § 648.12 Experimental fishing.

    The Regional Administrator may exempt any person or vessel from the requirements of subparts A (General provisions), B (Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish), D (Atlantic sea scallop), E (Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog), F (NE multispecies and monkfish), G (summer flounder), H (scup), I (black sea bass), J (Atlantic bluefish), K (Atlantic herring), L (spiny dogfish), M (Atlantic deep-sea red crab), N (tilefish), O (skates), and P (Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel) of this part for the conduct of experimental fishing beneficial to the management of the resources or fishery managed under that subpart. The Regional Administrator shall consult with the Executive Director of the MAFMC before approving any exemptions for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, spiny dogfish, bluefish, and tilefish fisheries, including exemptions for experimental fishing contributing to the development of new or expansion of existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel.

    8. In § 648.14, add paragraph (w) to read as follows:
    § 648.14 Prohibitions.

    (w) Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel. It is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel issued a valid commercial permit under this part to do any of the following:

    (1) Fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or land; or attempt to fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or land; more than 1,700 lb (771.11 kg) of all Mid-Atlantic forage species combined per trip in or from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c). A vessel not issued a commercial permit in accordance with § 648.4 that fished exclusively in state waters or a vessel that fished Federal waters outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit that is transiting the area with gear that is stowed and not available for immediate use is exempt from this prohibition.

    (2) Fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or land; or attempt to fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or land; more than 40,000 lb (18.14 mt) of Atlantic chub mackerel per trip in or from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c), after the annual Atlantic chub mackerel landing limit has been harvested and notice has been provided to the public consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. A vessel not issued a commercial permit in accordance with § 648.4 that fished exclusively in state waters or a vessel that fished in Federal waters outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit that is transiting the area with gear that is stowed and not available for immediate use is exempt from this prohibition.

    9. Add subpart P to read as follows: Subpart P—Mid-Atlantic Forage Species and Atlantic Chub Mackerel Sec. 648.350 Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel annual landing limits. 648.351 Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel possession limits. 648.352 Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel framework measures.
    § 648.350 Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel annual landing limits.

    (a) Mid-Atlantic forage species. There is no annual landing limit for Mid-Atlantic forage species, as defined at § 648.2.

    (b) Atlantic chub mackerel. Effective through December 31, 2020, the annual landings limit for Atlantic chub mackerel is set at 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt). All landings of Atlantic chub mackerel by vessels issued a Federal commercial permit in accordance with § 648.4 in ports from Maine through North Carolina shall count against the annual landings limit. NMFS shall close the directed fishery for Atlantic chub mackerel in the EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act when the Regional Administrator determines that 100 percent of the Atlantic chub mackerel annual landings limit has been harvested. Following closure of the directed Atlantic chub mackerel fishery, a vessel must adhere to the possession limit specified in § 648.351(b).

    § 648.351 Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel possession limits.

    (a) Mid-Atlantic forage species. Unless otherwise prohibited in § 648.80, a vessel issued a valid commercial permit in accordance with § 648.4 may fish for, possess, and land up to 1,700 lb (771.11 kg) of all Mid-Atlantic forage species combined per trip in or from the EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section. A vessel not issued a permit in accordance with § 648.4 that is fishing exclusively in state waters is exempt from the possession limits specified in this section.

    (b) Atlantic chub mackerel. Effective through December 31, 2020, a vessel issued a valid commercial permit in accordance with § 648.4 may fish for, possess, and land an unlimited amount of Atlantic chub mackerel from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, provided the Atlantic chub mackerel annual landing limit has not been harvested. Once the Atlantic chub mackerel annual landing limit has been harvested, as specified in § 648.350, a vessel may fish for, possess, and land up to 40,000 lb (18.14 mt) of Atlantic chub mackerel per trip in or from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit for the remainder of the fishing year (until December 31). A vessel not issued a permit in accordance with § 648.4 that is fishing exclusively in state waters is exempt from the possession limits specified in this section.

    (c) Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit. The Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit is the area of the Atlantic Ocean that is bounded on the southeast by the outer limit of the U.S. EEZ; bounded on the south by 35°15.3′ N. lat. (the approximate latitude of Cape Hatteras, NC); bounded on the west and north by the coastline of the United States; and bounded on the northeast by the following points, connected in the order listed by straight lines:

    Point Latitude Longitude 1 40°59.32′ N. 73°39.62′ W. 2 40°59.02′ N. 73°39.41′ W. 3 40°57.05′ N. 73°36.78′ W. 4 40°57.87′ N. 73°32.85′ W. 5 40°59.78′ N. 73°23.70′ W. 6 41°1.57′ N. 73°15.00′ W. 7 41°3.40′ N. 73°6.10′ W. 8 41°4.65′ N. 73°0.00′ W. 9 41°6.67′ N. 72°50.00′ W. 10 41°8.69′ N. 72°40.00′ W. 11 41°10.79′ N. 72°29.45′ W. 12 41°12.22′ N. 72°22.25′ W. 13 41°13.57′ N. 72°15.38′ W. 14 41°14.94′ N. 72°8.35′ W. 15 41°15.52′ N. 72°5.41′ W. 16 41°17.43′ N. 72°1.18′ W. 17 41°18.62′ N. 71°55.80′ W. 18 41°18.27′ N. 71°54.47′ W. 19 41°10.31′ N. 71°46.44′ W. 20 41°2.35′ N. 71°38.43′ W. 21 40°54.37′ N. 71°30.45′ W. 22 40°46.39′ N. 71°22.51′ W. 23 40°38.39′ N. 71°14.60′ W. 24 40°30.39′ N. 71°6.72′ W. 25 40°22.38′ N. 70°58.87′ W. 26 40°14.36′ N. 70°51.05′ W. 27 40°6.33′ N. 70°43.27′ W. 28 39°58.29′ N. 70°35.51′ W. 29 39°50.24′ N. 70°27.78′ W. 30 39°42.18′ N. 70°20.09′ W. 31 39°34.11′ N. 70°12.42′ W. 32 39°26.04′ N. 70°4.78′ W. 33 39°17.96′ N. 69°57.18′ W. 34 39°9.86′ N. 69°49.6′ W. 35 39°1.77′ N. 69°42.05′ W. 36 38°53.66′ N. 69°34.53′ W. 37 38°45.54′ N. 69°27.03′ W. 38 38°37.42′ N. 69°19.57′ W. 39 38°29.29′ N. 69°12.13′ W. 40 38°21.15′ N. 69°4.73′ W. 41 38°13.00′ N. 68°57.35′ W. 42 38°4.84′ N. 68°49.99′ W. 43* 38°2.21′ N. 68°47.62′ W. * Point 43 falls on the U.S. EEZ.

    (d) Transiting. Any vessel issued a valid permit in accordance with § 648.4 may transit the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, with an amount of Mid-Atlantic forage species or Atlantic chub mackerel on board that exceeds the possession limits specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, respectively, to land in a port in a state that is outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, provided that those species were harvested outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit and that all gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2. The transitting provisions specified in this paragraph (d) for a vessel possessing Atlantic chub mackerel are effective through December 31, 2020.

    § 648.352 Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel framework measures.

    (a) General. The MAFMC may, at any time, initiate action to add or revise management measures if it finds that action is necessary to meet or be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP; the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP; the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP; the Atlantic Bluefish FMP; the Spiny Dogfish FMP; and Tilefish FMPs.

    (b) Adjustment process. The MAFMC shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC meetings. The MAFMC must provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed adjustment(s) at its first meeting, prior to its second meeting, and at its second meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or more of the following categories: The list of Mid-Atlantic forage species, possession limits, annual landing limits, and any other measure currently included in the applicable FMPs specified in paragraph (a) of this section. Issues that require significant departures from previously contemplated measures or that are otherwise introducing new concepts may require an amendment of the FMPs instead of a framework adjustment.

    (c) MAFMC recommendation. See § 648.110(a)(2).

    (d) NMFS action. See § 648.110(a)(3).

    (e) Emergency actions. See § 648.110(a)(4).

    [FR Doc. 2017-18034 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 165 Monday, August 28, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0806; Product Identifier 2017-NM-064-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a flight test report indicating that the crew oxygen masks in the flight deck did not deploy correctly. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine whether any crew oxygen mask having a certain part number is installed at four locations in the flight deck, and replacing affected crew oxygen masks. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 12, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0806.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0806; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0806; Product Identifier 2017-NM-064-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received a Model 787-8 flight test report indicating that the crew oxygen masks in the flight deck did not deploy correctly. When the crew oxygen masks were removed from the stowage boxes, the harnesses were stuck in the face masks. The harness could get caught in the oronasal mask or goggles and increase the time needed to don the crew oxygen mask. Removing the harness from the face mask required using two hands and exceeded the requirement for the flight crew to don the oxygen mask in 5 seconds. Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes use the same design for the crew oxygen masks. This mask removal condition, if not corrected, could lead to flight crew hypoxia and the loss of useful consciousness, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aircraft.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB350007-00, Issue 001, dated May 9, 2017. The service information describes procedures for replacing the crew oxygen masks at four locations in the flight deck. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB350007-00, Issue 001, dated May 9, 2017, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0806.

    For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD, this proposed AD requires an inspection to determine whether any crew oxygen mask having part number MLD20-626-1 is installed, and replacement if necessary.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The proposed AD applicability differs from the service information due to rotability of parts. Because the affected parts are rotable parts, we have determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 57 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $4,845 Replacement Up to 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 Up to $36,800 Up to $37,140 Up to $2,116,980 Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0806; Product Identifier 2017-NM-064-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 12, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a flight test report indicating that the crew oxygen masks in the flight deck did not deploy correctly. We are issuing this AD to prevent the oxygen mask harness from getting caught in the oronasal mask or goggles, which may lead to flight crew hypoxia and the loss of useful consciousness, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aircraft.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Oxygen Mask Inspection and Replacement

    For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to determine whether any crew oxygen mask having part number (P/N) MLD20-626-1 is installed at the four locations identified in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB350007-00, Issue 001, dated May 9, 2017. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the crew oxygen mask can be conclusively determined from that review. If any crew oxygen mask having P/N MLD20-626-1 is found installed, within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB350007-00, Issue 001, dated May 9, 2017.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a crew oxygen mask having P/N MLD20-626-1 on any airplane.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18164 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0665; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-7] Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-56 and V-209 in the Vicinity of Kewanee, AL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-56 and V-209, in the vicinity of Kewanee, AL. This action is necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the Kewanee, AL, VORTAC navigation aid, which provides navigation guidance for segments of the routes. This proposal would provide for the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 12, 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: 1 (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0665 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-7 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. The Docket Office (telephone 1 (800) 647-5527, is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

    Comments Invited

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

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0665 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-7) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0665 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRM's

    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 ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. 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 to modify VOR Federal airways V-56 and V-209, in the vicinity of Kewanee, AL, due to the planned decommissioning of the Kewanee, AL, VORTAC. This proposal would also correct the location for the Choo Choo VORTAC to read Tennessee. The proposed route changes are described below.

    V-56: V-56 currently extends between Meridian, MS, and New Bern, NC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segments between Meridian, MS, and Tuskegee, AL. Therefore, the proposed amended route would extend between Tuskegee, AL, and New Bern, NC.

    V-209: V-209 currently extends between Semmes, AL, and Choo Choo, TN. The FAA proposes to eliminate the Kewanee VORTAC from the route, which would result in a gap in the airway between the intersection of the Semmes, AL, 356° and Eaton, MS, 080° radials (i.e., the charted YARBO fix, located approximately 43 NM north of Semmes, AL), and the intersection of the Bigbee, MS 139°(T)/135°(M) and Brookwood, AL 230°(T)/230°(M) radials (i.e., the charted EUTAW fix, located approximately 41 NM northeast of Kewanee). Therefore, the proposed amended V-209 route would consist of two sections: First, between Semmes, AL, and the YARBO fix; and, after the gap, the airway would resume between the EUTAW fix, as currently charted, to Choo Choo, TN.

    Note:

    In the V-209 description, both True (T) and Magnetic (M) degrees are stated because new radials are being used to describe the EUTAW fix. All other radials in this notice are stated in True degrees only since they are unchanged from currently published data.

    Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) 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 VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be 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

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways. V-56 [Amended]

    From Tuskegee, AL; Columbus, GA; INT Columbus 087° and Macon, GA, 266° radials; Macon; Colliers, SC; Columbia, SC; Florence, SC; Fayetteville, NC, 41 miles 15 MSL, INT Fayetteville 098° and New Bern, NC 256° radials; to New Bern.

    V-209 [Amended]

    From Semmes, AL, via INT Semmes 356° and Eaton, MS, 080° radials. From INT Bigbee, MS 139°(T)/135°(M) and Brookwood, AL 230°(T)/230°(M) radials; Brookwood; Vulcan, AL; INT Vulcan 097° and Gadsden, AL, 233° radials; Gadsden; INT Gadsden 042° and Choo Choo, TN, 214° radials; Choo Choo.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2017. Rodger A. Dean Jr., Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18106 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0615; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-25] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Madras, OR AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Madras Municipal Airport, Madras, OR, amending the airspace for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System. The airspace designation was inadvertently removed from FAA Order 7400.9X on June 20, 2014.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 12, 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: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0615; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-25, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18383) the FAA revised Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Redmond, OR, to accommodate aircraft using new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at City-County Airport, Madras, OR. The airspace for City-County Airport was defined by the Deschutes VORTAC radials. On June 20, 2014 (79 FR 35279) the FAA revised Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR, by removing the airspace defined by the Deschutes VORTAC. In doing so, the FAA inadvertently removed the airspace supporting Madras Municipal Airport (formerly City-County Airport), Madras, OR. This proposal would establish the amended controlled airspace designated for Madras Municipal Airport, Madras, OR.

    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. Persons 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-2017-0615/Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-25”. 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 Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Madras Municipal Airport, Madras, OR. The airspace would be established within 4 miles northwest and 3.5 miles southeast of the 028° bearing from Madras Municipal Airport to 6.5 miles northeast of the airport, and within 4 miles northwest and 3.5 miles southeast of the 208° from the airport to 7.5 miles southwest of the airport. Additionally, a small segment 2.1 miles wide would extend from the 180° bearing from the airport to 10.6 miles south of the airport. This proposal is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this 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. ANM OR E5 Madras, OR [New] Madras Municipal Airport, OR (Lat. 44°40′13″ N., long. 121°09′19″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 4 miles northwest and 3.5 miles southeast of the 028° bearing from Madras Municipal Airport extending to 6.5 miles northeast of the airport, and within 4 miles northwest and 3.5 miles southeast of the 208° bearing from the airport extending to 7.5 miles southwest of the airport, and within 1.0 miles west and 1.1 miles east of the 180° bearing from the airport extending to 10.6 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 15, 2017. David G. Parker, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17878 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0737; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-12] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Twin Bridges, MT AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 and 1,200 feet above the surface, at Twin Bridges Airport, Twin Bridges, MT, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport. This action would ensure the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 12, 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: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0737; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace to support new RNAV procedures at Twin Bridges Airport, Twin Bridges, MT.

    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. Persons 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-2017-0737; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-12”. 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 Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Twin Bridges Airport, Twin Bridges, MT, within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport and within 4.1 miles each side of the 011° bearing from the airport extending to 12 miles north of the airport, and within 4.1 miles each side of the 195° bearing from the airport extending to 13.5 miles south of the airport.

    Additionally, this proposal would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 20-mile radius of Twin Bridges Airport This proposed airspace is necessary to support the new RNAV procedures for runways 17 and 35 for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM MT E5 Twin Bridges, MT [New] Twin Bridges Airport, MT (Lat. 45°32′07″ N., long. 112°18′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.1 mile radius of Twin Bridges Airport, and within 4.1 miles each side of the 011° bearing from the airport extending to 12 miles north of the airport, and within 4.1 miles each side of the 195° bearing from the airport extending to 13.5 miles south of the airport; and that airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 20-mile radius of Twin Bridges Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 16, 2017. David G. Parker, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17988 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 328 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 232, 300, 302, and 401 [EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0480; FRL-9966-99-OW] Definition of “Waters of the United States”—Schedule of Public Meetings AGENCY:

    Department of the Army; and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public meeting dates.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army (the agencies) will hold ten teleconferences to hear from stakeholders their recommendations to revise the definition of “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Nine of the teleconferences will be tailored to a specific sector, i.e., agriculture (row crop, livestock, silviculture); conservation (hunters and anglers); small entities (small businesses, small organizations, small jurisdictions); construction and transportation; environment and public advocacy (including health and environmental justice); mining; industry (energy, chemical, oil/gas); scientific organizations and academia; and stormwater, wastewater management, and drinking water agencies. One of the teleconferences will be open to the public at large. The teleconferences will run throughout the fall on Tuesdays from 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. eastern time, beginning on September 19, 2017. In addition, the agencies will hold an in-person meeting with small entities on October 23, 2017 from 9:00 a.m.-11 a.m., and will accept written recommendations from any member of the public.

    DATES:

    Written recommendation must be received on or before November 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your recommendations, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0480, at http://www.regulations.gov. This docket, established as a courtesy to the stakeholder community, will be included in the administrative record of the regulation revising the definition of “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The agencies will not be formally responding to the recommendations. Follow the online instructions for submitting recommendations. Once submitted, your submission cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The agencies may publish any submission received to the 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Damaris Christensen, Office of Water (4504-T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-2428; email address: [email protected]; or Ms. Stacey Jensen, Regulatory Community of Practice (CECW-CO-R), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314; telephone number: (202) 761-5903; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 28, 2017, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.) entitled “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule”. This E.O. states that it is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation's navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. The E.O. directs the agencies to review the Clean Water Rule for consistency with these priorities and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law. Further, the E.O. directs that the agencies shall consider interpreting the term “navigable waters,” as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(7), in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Justice Scalia's opinion considers CWA jurisdiction as including relatively permanent waters and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent waters.

    The agencies are implementing the E.O. in two steps to provide as much certainty as possible as quickly as possible to the regulated community and the public during the development of the ultimate replacement rule. For the first step, the agencies proposed on July 27, 2017, a rule to re-codify the regulation that was in place prior to issuance of the Clean Water Rule and that is being implemented now under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's stay of that rule.1 The comment period for this first step proposed rule is open until September 27, 2017.

    1 The Clean Water Rule was promulgated on June 29, 2015 (80 FR 37054). It was in effect in most of the country for a two-month period before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nation-wide stay. The agencies are currently implementing the previous regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” in light of the stay.

    For the second step, the agencies plan to propose a new definition that would replace the approach in the 2015 Clean Water Rule with one that is consistent with the approach outlined in the E.O. In June 2017, the agencies completed consultation processes with tribes as well as state and local governments on the step 2 rulemaking. The meetings described below will provide other interested stakeholders opportunity to provide pre-proposal feedback on this second step rule to revise the definition of “waters of the U.S.”

    Both EPA and the Corps are aware that the scope of CWA jurisdiction is of intense interest to a broad array of stakeholders and therefore want to provide time for broad pre-proposal input. The teleconferences in this notice are intended to solicit recommendations for Step 2 and potential approaches to defining “waters of the United States.” During the upcoming teleconferences, EPA will provide brief background information on the step 2 rulemaking, and progress to date. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide input, particularly with regard to the charge in the E.O. and opinion of Justice Scalia.

    The teleconferences will be held on a weekly basis beginning September 19 and will continue each Tuesday thereafter for ten weeks. Each will run from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. eastern time. Information on how to register for each of these meetings is available on the EPA Web site at https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/outreach-meetings. Registration for each webinar will close a week prior. Persons or organizations wishing to provide verbal recommendations during the teleconference will be selected on a first-come, first-serve basis. Due to the expected volume of participants, individuals will be asked to limit their oral presentation to three minutes.

    Supporting materials and comments from those who did not have an opportunity to speak can be submitted to the docket as discussed above. The schedule for the Waters of the US webinars is as follows:

    • Tuesday, September 19, 2017—small entities (small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions);

    • Tuesday, September 26, 2017—environment and public advocacy;

    • Tuesday, October 3, 2017—conservation, e.g., hunters and anglers;

    • Tuesday, October 10, 2017—construction and transportation;

    • Tuesday, October 17, 2017—agriculture;

    • Tuesday, October 24, 2017—industry;

    • Tuesday, October 31, 2017— mining;

    • Tuesday, November 7, 2017—scientific organizations and academia;

    • Tuesday, November 14, 2017—stormwater, wastewater management and drinking water agencies; and

    • Tuesday, November 21, 2017—open to general public.

    The agencies are also planning an in-person meeting with small entities, which will be held on Monday, October 23, 2017, from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time at the U.S. EPA's Headquarters located at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20003. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who wish to attend must contact Joan B. Rogers (202-564-6568 or [email protected]), no later than Friday, October 13, 2017. RSVPs will be accepted until October 13, or until room capacity has been reached (100 max), whichever occurs first.

    Dated: August 18, 2017. John Goodin, Acting Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency. Dated: August 18, 2017. Douglas W. Lamont, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Project Planning and Review), performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18214 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0394; FRL-9966-95-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Approval of an Alternative Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision incorporates by reference a Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) order that establishes an alternative volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standard for National Gypsum Company (NGC) to ensure that it remains a minor VOC source. In the Final Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is approving Maryland's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0394 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory A. Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: August 12, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18085 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 165 Monday, August 28, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2016-0042] Reopening of Nomination Period for Membership on the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 7, 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced in a Federal Register notice that it was soliciting nominations for membership on the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) to fill 15 vacancies. The closing date for nominations was January 6, 2017. This notice reopens the nomination period for 30 days. This notice also announces that there are two more vacancies on the committee. Since the original announcement was made, two additional members have left the committee. The USDA is now seeking nominations to fill 17 vacancies. Nominations submitted during the original submission period do not need to be resubmitted.

    DATES:

    All materials must be received by September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nomination packages should be sent via email to [email protected] and mailed to: Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Attn: FSIS\Office of Public Health Science/National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (Karen Thomas-Sharp).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Karen Thomas-Sharp, Advisory Committee Specialist, by telephone at 202-690-6620 or by email [email protected]

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site (http://www.regulations.gov/) provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Mail, including CD-ROMS and hand or courier delivered items: Send to Docket Clerk, USDA, FSIS Docket Room, Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or email must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2016-0042. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov/.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, go to the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-164, Washington, DC 20250-3700 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. All comments submitted in response to this notice, as well as background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The NACMCF was established in March 1988, in response to a recommendation in a 1985 report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Food Protection, Subcommittee on Microbiological Criteria, “An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods.” The current charter for the NACMCF and other information about the Committee are available to the public for viewing on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/nacmcf.

    Nominees are sought who have scientific expertise in the fields of in the fields of microbiology, epidemiology, food technology (food, clinical, and predictive), toxicology, risk assessment, infectious disease, biostatistics, and other related sciences. Persons from the government, industry, academia, and consumer advocacy groups are invited to submit nominations.

    The Committee provides scientific advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services concerning the development of microbiological criteria by which the safety and wholesomeness of food can be assessed. For example, one of the most recent efforts of the Committee is to provide the best scientific information available on Shiga Toxin producing E. coli, including providing recommendations on optimal detection and identification methodologies.

    Appointments to the Committee will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that recommendations made by the Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department. On December 7, 2016, the USDA announced that it was seeking nominations to fill 15 vacancies (81 FR 88197). Since the original announcement was made, two additional members have left the committee. The USDA is now seeking to fill 17 vacancies. Advisory Committee members serve a two-year term, renewable for two consecutive terms.

    The full Committee expects to meet at least once a year by teleconference or in-person, and the meetings will be announced in the Federal Register. The subcommittees will meet as deemed necessary by the chairperson through working group meetings in an open public forum. Subcommittees also may meet through teleconference or by computer-based conferencing (Webinars). Subcommittees may invite technical experts to present information for consideration by the subcommittee. The subcommittee meetings will not be announced in the Federal Register. FSIS will announce the agenda and subcommittee working group meetings through the Constituent Update, available online at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/cu.

    NACMCF holds subcommittee meetings in order to accomplish the work of NACMCF; all subcommittee work is reviewed and approved during a public meeting of the full Committee, as announced in the Federal Register. All data and records available to the full Committee are expected to be available to the public when the full Committee reviews and approves the work of the subcommittee. Advisory Committee members are expected to attend all in-person meetings during the two-year term to ensure the smooth functioning of the advisory committee. However, on rare occasions, attendance through teleconferencing may be permitted.

    Members must be prepared to work outside of scheduled Committee and subcommittee meetings and may be required to assist in document preparation. Committee members serve on a voluntary basis; however, travel expenses and per diem reimbursement are available.

    Regarding Nominees Who Are Selected

    All SGE and Federal government employee nominees who are selected must complete the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) 450 Confidential Financial Disclosure Report before rendering any advice or before their first meeting. With the exception of the consumer representative committee member, all committee members will be reviewed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 208 for conflicts of interest relating to specific NACMCF work charges, and financial disclosure updates will be required annually. Members subject to financial disclosure must report any changes in financial holdings requiring additional disclosure. OGE 450 forms are available on-line at: https://www2.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Confidential%20Financial%20Disclosure.

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

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

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

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

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

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

    Fax: (202) 690-7442.

    Email: [email protected]

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

    Done at Washington, DC, August 23, 2017. Paul Kiecker, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18168 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS Sunshine Act Meeting DATE AND TIME:

    Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 1:30 p.m. EDT.

    PLACE:

    Broadcasting Board of Governors, Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

    SUBJECT:

    Notice of Closed Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

    SUMMARY:

    The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in a special session to discuss and approve a budget submission for Fiscal Year 2019. According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, Section 22.1, all agency budgetary materials and data are considered confidential prior to the President submitting a budget to Congress. In accordance with section 22.5 of Circular A-11, the BBG has determined that its meeting should be closed to public observation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act and BBG policies, the meeting will be recorded and a transcript of the proceedings, subject to the redaction of information protected by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), will be made available to the public. The publicly-releasable transcript will be available for download at www.bbg.gov within 21 days of the date of the meeting.

    Information regarding member votes to close the meeting and expected attendees can also be found on the Agency's public Web site.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

    Oanh Tran, Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18309 Filed 8-24-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
    BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATE AND TIME:

    Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 2:15 p.m. EDT

    PLACE:

    Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

    SUBJECT:

    Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

    SUMMARY:

    The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of its June 14, 2017 meeting. The Board will receive a report from the Chief Executive Officer and Director of BBG.

    This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public Web site at www.bbg.gov. Information regarding this meeting, including any updates or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the agency's public Web site.

    The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address listed above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting in person must register at https://bbgboardmeetingaugust2017.eventbrite.com by 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on August 29. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 203-4400 or by email at [email protected]

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

    Oanh Tran, Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18310 Filed 8-24-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [7/27/2017 through 8/14/2017] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for

  • investigation
  • Product(s) Wasatch Photonics, Inc 1305 North 1000 West, Suite 120, Logan, UT 84321 8/3/2017 The firm manufactures holographic gratings, spectroscopic instruments, and optical coherence tomography solutions. Electro-Hydraulic Automation, Inc 1620 Blairs Ferry Road NE., Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 8/7/2017 The firm manufactures hydraulic and pneumatic power units.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Irette Patterson, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17616 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-560-831] Biodiesel From the Republic of Indonesia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of biodiesel from the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    August 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gene Calvert or Joseph Traw, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586 or (202) 482-6079, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 19, 2017.1 On June 5, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until no later than August 20, 2017. However, because August 20, 2017, falls on a Sunday, the preliminary determination was postponed until August 21, 2017.2 A complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation can be found in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. A complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can also be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 18423 (April 19, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Biodiesel From Argentina and Indonesia: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 25773 (June 5, 2017); see also Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    3See Department Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Affirmative Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Biodiesel from the Republic of Indonesia,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is biodiesel from Indonesia. A complete description of the scope of this investigation is included as Appendix I to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of this investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

    4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).

    5See Initiation Notice at the section, “Comments on Scope of the Investigations.”

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution provided by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.6

    6See sections 771(5)(B) and 771(D) of the Act (regarding financial contribution); see also section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit, and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation

    We preliminarily determine that countervailable subsidies are being provided with respect to the manufacture, production, or exportation of the subject merchandise. In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually examined, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individually-examined company respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the “all-others” rate should exclude zero and de minimis rates or any rates based solely on the facts otherwise available calculated for the producers/exporters individually investigated. Neither of the individually-examined company respondents' rates in in this preliminary determination is zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Accordingly, in this preliminary determination, we have calculated the “all-others” rate by weight averaging the calculated subsidy rates of the two individually examined company respondents. In order to ensure that business proprietary information is not disclosed through the all-others rate, we are using a weighted average of the publicly-ranged information provided by Musim Mas and Wilmar Trading for their sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • PT Musim Mas 68.28 Wilmar Trading PTE Ltd. 41.06 All-Others 44.92

    In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and 703(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of biodiesel from Indonesia that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit equal to the subsidy rates indicated above.

    Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection of this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.7

    7See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.

    Public Comment and Request for Hearing

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance via ACCESS no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted by no later than five days after the deadline for case briefs.8 A table of contents, list of authorities used, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). This summary should be limited to five pages, including footnotes.

    8See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 for general filing requirements.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c) interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, via ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be successfully received, in its entirety, by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a hearing is requested, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined. Parties will be notified of the date, time, and location of any hearing via ACCESS. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing date two days before the scheduled date of the hearing.

    U.S. International Trade Commission

    Pursuant to section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of this preliminary determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative,9 the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

    9 As of the signing of this notice, the petitioner (the National Biodiesel Fair Trade Coalition) had not requested that the date of the final determination of this investigation be aligned with the date of the final determination of the companion antidumping investigation, pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, the current date for the final determination of this investigation is 75 days from the signature of this preliminary determination, November 6, 2017.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    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 I—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Injury Test VI. New Subsidy Allegation VII. Subsidies Valuation VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Calculation of All-Others Rate X. ITC Notification XI. Disclosure and Public Comment XII. Verification XIII. Conclusion

    Appendix I—List of Additional Companies Preliminarily Found to be Cross-Owned with Musim Mas and Intibenua

    Appendix II—List of Additional Companies Preliminarily Found to be Cross-Owned with Wilmar Trading

    Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is biodiesel, which is a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats, including biologically-based waste oils or greases, and other biologically based oil or fat sources. This investigation covers biodiesel in pure form (B100) as well as fuel mixtures containing at least 99 percent biodiesel by volume (B99). For fuel mixtures containing less than 99 percent biodiesel by volume, only the biodiesel component of the mixture is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    Biodiesel is generally produced to American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) D6751 specifications, but it can also be made to other specifications. Biodiesel commonly has one of the following Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers, generally depending upon the feedstock used: 67784-80-9 (soybean oil methyl esters); 91051-34-2 (palm oil methyl esters); 91051-32-0 (palm kernel oil methyl esters); 73891-99-3 (rapeseed oil methyl esters); 61788-61-2 (tallow methyl esters); 68990-52-3 (vegetable oil methyl esters); 129828-16-6 (canola oil methyl esters); 67762-26-9 (unsaturated alkylcarboxylic acid methyl ester); or 68937-84-8 (fatty acids, C12-C18, methyl ester).

    The B100 product subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under subheading 3826.00.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), while the B99 product is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 3826.00.3000. Although the HTSUS subheadings, ASTM specifications, and CAS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-18167 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-357-821] Biodiesel From Argentina: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of biodiesel from Argentina. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    August 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elfi Blum-Page or Kathryn Wallace, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197 or (202) 482-6251, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 19, 2017.1 On June 5, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation to August 20, 2017. However, because August 20, 2017, falls on a Sunday, the preliminary determination was postponed until August 21, 2017.2 A complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 18423 (April 19, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 82 FR 25773 (June 5, 2017); see also Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    3See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Biodiesel from Argentina,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is biodiesel from Argentina. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

    4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    5See Initiation Notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.6

    6See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    In making these findings, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, an adverse inference was drawn, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.7 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    7See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    In accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act, the Department preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of biodiesel from Argentina for LDC Argentina and Vicentin, but do not exist with respect to all other exporters or producers not individually examined. For a full description of the methodology and results of the Department's analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, the Department calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for LDC Argentina and Vicentin that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. The Department calculated the all-others' rate using a weighted average of the individual estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration.8

    8 With two respondents under examination, the Department normally calculates (A) a weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents; (B) a simple average of the estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents; and (C) a weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents using each company's publicly-ranged U.S. sale quantities for the merchandise under consideration. The Department then compares (B) and (C) to (A) and selects the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other producers and exporters. See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged sales data was available, the Department based the all-others rate on the publicly ranged sales data of the mandatory respondents. For a complete analysis of the data, please see the All-Others' Rate Calculation Memorandum.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • LDC Argentina S.A.9 50.29 Vicentin S.A.I.C.10 64.17 All-Others 57.01
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

    9 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with LDC Argentina S.A.: LDC Semillas S.A., Semillas del Rosario S.A.

    10 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Vicentin S.A.I.C.: Oleaginosa San Lorenzo S.A, Los Amores S.A.

    Section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. The Department preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by LDC Argentina and Vicentin. In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise from the exporters/producers identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

    Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment and Request for Hearing

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.11 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    11See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative,12 the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

    12 As of the signing of this notice, the petitioner (the National Biodiesel Fair Trade Coalition) had not requested that the date of the final determination of this investigation be aligned with the date of the final determination of the companion antidumping investigation, pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, the current date for the final determination of this investigation is 75 days from the signature of this preliminary determination, November 6, 2017.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Gary Taverman Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive function and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is biodiesel, which is a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats, including biologically-based waste oils or greases, and other biologically-based oil or fat sources. The investigations cover biodiesel in pure form (B100) as well as fuel mixtures containing at least 99 percent biodiesel by volume (B99). For fuel mixtures containing less than 99 percent biodiesel by volume, only the biodiesel component of the mixture is covered by the scope of the investigations.

    Biodiesel is generally produced to American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) D6751 specifications, but it can also be made to other specifications. Biodiesel commonly has one of the following Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers, generally depending upon the feedstock used: 67784-80-9 (soybean oil methyl esters); 91051-34-2 (palm oil methyl esters); 91051-32-0 (palm kernel oil methyl esters); 73891-99-3 (rapeseed oil methyl esters); 61788-61-2 (tallow methyl esters); 68990-52-3 (vegetable oil methyl esters); 129828-16-6 (canola oil methyl esters); 67762-26-9 (unsaturated alkylcarboxylic acid methyl ester); or 68937-84-8 (fatty acids, C12-C18, methyl ester).

    The B100 product subject to the investigation is currently classifiable under subheading 3826.00.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), while the B99 product is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 3826.00.3000. Although the HTSUS subheadings, ASTM specifications, and CAS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Injury Test VI. Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Facts Available VIII. Subsidies Valuation IX. Analysis of Programs X. Calculation of All-Others Rate XI. ITC Notification XII. Disclosure and Public Comment XIII. Verification XIV. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-18166 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of National Estuarine Research Reserve AGENCY:

    Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments for the performance evaluation of the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

    DATES:

    Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Evaluation: The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 27, 2017, and written comments must be received on or before Friday, October 6, 2017.

    For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meeting, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the reserves and coastal program NOAA intends to evaluate by any of the following methods:

    Public Meeting and Oral Comments: A public meeting will be held in Mt. Vernon, Washington for the Padilla Bay Reserve. For the specific location, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Written Comments: Please direct written comments to Ralph Cantral, Senior Advisor, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East West Highway N/OCM1, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ralph Cantral, Senior Advisor, Policy, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East West Highway N/OCM1, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (240) 533-0729, or via email to [email protected] Copies of the previous evaluation findings, Management Plan, and Site Profile may be viewed and downloaded on the Internet at http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/evaluations. A copy of the evaluation notification letter and most recent performance report may be obtained upon request by contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Sections 312 and 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) require NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved national estuarine research reserves. The process includes a public meeting, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. For the evaluation of National Estuarine Research Reserves, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to its management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the Coastal Zone Management Act. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

    Specific information on the periodic evaluation of reserves that are the subject of this notice are detailed below as follows:

    Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Evaluation

    You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:

    Date: September 27, 2017.

    Time: 7:00 p.m., local time.

    Location: Padilla Bay Reserve Interpretive Center, 10441 Bayview-Edison Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273.

    Written comments must be received on or before October 6, 2017.

    Dated: July 27, 2017. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration Paul M. Scholz, Deputy Director, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18192 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF328 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Regional Administrator, NMFS West Coast Region, has determined that twenty-seven exempted fishing permit (EFP) applications warrant further consideration; therefore, NMFS is requesting public comment on the applications. All EFP applicants request an exemption from various prohibitions under the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) to test the effects and efficacy of using deep-set buoy gear (DSBG) and linked buoy gear (LBG) to harvest swordfish and other highly migratory species (HMS) off of the U.S. West Coast. This notice also announces and requests public comment on NMFS' intent to extend a DSBG EFP.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted in writing by September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0025, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0025, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. EFP applications will be available under Relevant Documents through the same link.

    Mail: Attn: Chris Fanning, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0025” in the comments.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Fanning, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4198.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 2015, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended that NMFS consider issuing three DSBG EFPs to target swordfish and other HMS off of the U.S. West Coast. After requesting public comment and completing required analyses, NMFS approved DSBG EFPs for the Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research (PIER), Timothy Perguson, and Stephen Mintz for the 2015-2016 fishing seasons. Fishing activities under EFPs have yielded two years of additional data to supplement an existing five years of data from DSBG research and trials. In December 2016 and January 2017, NMFS reissued the PIER and Perguson EFPs for a duration of two years. NMFS continues to support testing alternative gears as a means to increase domestic fishing opportunity while minimizing non-target bycatch and interactions with protected species.

    At its recent meetings, the Council received additional applications for EFPs and recommended that NMFS consider issuing or reissuing EFPs to a suite of interested applicants. During its November 2016 meeting, the Council recommended that NMFS reissue Stephen Mintz' EFP for the 2017-2018 fishing seasons. At its March and June 2017 meetings, the Council recommended that NMFS consider issuing a total of twenty EFPs to authorize use of DSBG and/or LBG (see Table 1). LBG is defined as connectable segments of linked buoys floating at the ocean surface, connected to vertical lines with heavy weights allowing a horizontal line with three hooks to sink to the same depth as the terminal hook of DSBG. Additionally, seven other DSBG EFP applications were submitted for Council review, and require additional information for future consideration (see Table 2).

    NMFS is requesting public comment on the twenty applications recommended for issuance by the Council as well as the seven applications that were not formally recommended by the Council at this time. If all applications were approved, the EFPs would allow up to thirty-two vessels to fish with DSBG and six vessels to fish with LBG, throughout the duration of each EFP, in the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with permitted exemption from the requirements of the HMS FMP pertaining to non-authorized gear types. Aside from the exemption described above, vessels fishing under an EFP would be subject to all other regulations implementing the HMS FMP, including measures to protect sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds. For up-to-date information on HMS EFPs, please visit NMFS West Coast Region's “Status of Exempted Fishing Permits” Web page (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/migratory_species/status_exempted_permits.html).

    Table 1—EFP Applications Recommended for Issuance by the PFMC PFMC recommended EFPs Name Date of council recommendation Number of vessels Deep-Set Buoy Gear Applicants Mintz, Stephen November 2016 1 Hepp, Fred March 2017 2 Jacobs, Kent March 2017 1 Kastlunger, Jordyn March 2017 1 Harris, Phil March 2017 1 Corbin, Denny March 2017 1 Diller, William March 2017 1 Cullen, Roger June 2017 1 Haworth, David & Arthur Lorton June 2017 3 Ball, Bob June 2017 1 Ford, John June 2017 1 Graves, Michael June 2017 1 Kennedy, Raymond June 2017 1 Massen, Lance June 2017 1 Selck, Dustin June 2017 1 Shvets, Anatolii June 2017 2 Sidielnikov, Andrii June 2017 1 Spinale, Paul June 2017 1 Stephens, J & B June 2017 2 Linked Buoy Gear Applicants Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research March 2017 3 Haworth, David & Arthur Lorton June 2017 3 Table 2—EFP Applications That the PFMC Has Yet To Recommend for Issuance Submitted EFPs Name Date of submission Number of vessels Deep-Set Buoy Gear Applicants Lutoshkin, A June 2017 1 Maassen, L June 2017 1 Masuda, S June 2017 1 McCarthy, M June 2017 2 Rynkevic, R June 2017 1 Sokolova, T June 2017 1 Sviridov, V June 2017 1

    In March 2017, the Council also recommended that in addition to current terms and conditions on issued EFPs, NMFS also impose the following stipulations:

    1. Require 100 percent observer coverage for the first ten sets of new EFP participants (a set is defined as 10 pieces of buoy gear soaked for at least eight hours). Once attained, observer coverage may be reduced to 30 percent of fishing days;

    2. Prohibit vessels from being more than three nautical miles from any piece of gear;

    3. Require proper maintenance of configured gear in accordance with their EFP; and

    4. Require each piece of DSBG and the terminal ends of LBG to be marked with a radar reflector and flag, and require buoys to be marked with the fishing vessel's official number.

    NMFS considers the Council's recommendations for additional conditions to apply to all issued and proposed DSBG and LBG EFPs. NMFS is also requesting public comment on the Council's recommendations for additional terms and conditions for the requested EFPs.

    NMFS will consider all public comments submitted in response to this Federal Register Notice prior to issuance of any EFP mentioned within this Notice. Additionally, NMFS will analyze the effects of issuing EFPs in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6, as well as ensure compliance with other applicable laws, including Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which requires the agency to insure that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18146 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Estuarine Research Reserve System AGENCY:

    Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Comment Period for the Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision.

    Notice is hereby given that the Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce is announcing a thirty-day public comment period for the Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision. Pursuant to 15 CFR Section 921.33(c), the revised plan will bring the reserve into compliance. The Jobos Bay Reserve revised plan will replace the plan approved in 2000.

    The revised management plan outlines the administrative structure; the research/monitoring, stewardship, education, and training programs and priorities of the reserve; plans for a proposed boundary expansion through future land acquisition; and facility development priorities to support reserve operations.

    The Jobos Bay Reserve takes an integrated approach to management, linking research and education, coastal training, and stewardship functions. The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER) has outlined how it will administer the reserve and its core programs by providing detailed actions that will enable it to accomplish specific goals and objectives. Since the last management plan, the reserve has: Developed core programs; expanded monitoring programs within Jobos Bay and its watershed; expanded its dorm, and remodeled the historic train depot and visitor center; conducted training workshops; implemented K-12 education programs; and built new and innovative partnerships with local, Commonwealth, and U.S. organizations and universities.

    The total number of acres within the boundary is 2800 acres, which is a slight modification of the original 2883 acres identified in the previous management plan. The revised acreage is a result of survey contracted by the PRDNER to clarify the boundary. The revised management plan will serve as the guiding document for the Jobos Bay Reserve for the next five years.

    View the Jobos Bay Reserve Management Plan revision at (http://drna.pr.gov/jbnerr/) and provide comments to the Reserve's Manager, Aitza Pabon ([email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nina Garfield at (240) 533-0817 or Erica Seiden at (240) 533-0781 of NOAA's Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Paul M. Scholz, Deputy Director, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18193 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-38] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-38 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN28AU17.024 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-38 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Australia

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0.0 million Other $108.7 million TOTAL $108.7 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): None

    Non-MDE includes: One thousand nine hundred fifty-two (1,952) ALE-70(V)/T-1687A Electronic Towed Decoy Countermeasures, publications and technical documentation, other technical assistance, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (XX-P-AMN A1)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: August 2, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Australia—ALE-70 Radio Frequency Countermeasures (RFCM)

    The Government of Australia has requested the possible sale of one thousand nine hundred fifty-two (1,952) ALE-70(V)/T-1687A Electronic Towed Decoy Countermeasures, publications and technical documentation, other technical assistance, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $108.7 million.

    This sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major non-NATO ally and continues to be an important force for political stability, security, and economic development in the Western Pacific. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.

    The proposed sale will improve Australia's F-35 survivability and will enhance its capability to deter global threats, strengthen its homeland defense, and cooperate in coalition defense initiatives. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be British Aerospace Enterprise (BAE), Nashua, NH. There are no offsets proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-38 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The ALE-70 is a towed radio frequency countermeasure designed for deployment from the F-35 aircraft and is comprised of electronic and mechanical sub-assemblies to accomplish the intended purpose. The ALE-70 consists of three major components: the reel/launcher assembly, the tow line, and the T-1687 countermeasure transmitter. Upon deployment from the aircraft, the countermeasure transmitter is reeled out to a prescribed distance, held in tow behind the jet by the tow line and emits waveforms in response to commands from the countermeasure controller located in the jet. The waveforms are utilized to confuse or decoy adversary radars or radar guided weapons. Designed and produced by BAE Systems of Nashua, New Hampshire, the ALE-70 employs amplifiers based on Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology to meet stringent output requirements.

    2. The ALE-70 generates, amplifies, and transmits signals in response to commands from the countermeasures controller which remains aboard the jet. Neither the countermeasure transmitter nor the reel/launcher assembly contains stored information or software representing critical program information. As the ALE-70 contains no software or stored waveforms/techniques, Anti-Tampering security measures are not required. ALE-70 hardware is classified SECRET to protect specific data elements associated with the performance of the countermeasure.

    3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent system which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that Australia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Australia.

    [FR Doc. 2017-18177 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-29] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-29 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN28AU17.020 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-29 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer, Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: The Republic of Iraq

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0 million Other 150 million TOTAL 150 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services Under Consideration for Purchase:

    Non-MDE: Follow-On Technical Support (FOTS) for various U.S.-origin navy vessels and a ship repair facility in Iraq to include procurement of spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training equipment, engineering and logistics support services and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (XX-P-GAS)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: GAL, 20 May 14; GAM, 20 May 14; GAO, 3 Nov 16

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: August 1, 2017

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Republic of Iraq—Follow-On Technical Support (FOTS) for U.S. Origin Navy Vessels and a Ship Repair Facility

    The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of Follow-On Technical Support (FOTS) for various U.S.-origin navy vessels and a ship repair facility in Iraq to include procurement of spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training equipment, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total program value is $150 million.

    The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to provide for a stable, sovereign, and democratic Iraq, capable of combating terrorism and protecting its people and sovereignty.

    Iraq intends to use this maintenance support to ensure the Navy is fully-operationally capable of providing coastal defense and security. The various vessels to be supported are: Patrol boats, offshore support vessels, fast assault boats, and Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats. The proposed sale of Follow-On Technical Support will increase the Iraq Navy's material and operational readiness. Iraq will have no difficulty absorbing this support into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor will be Swiftships, LLC, Morgan City, LA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require annual trips to Iraq and in-country presence involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews, support and oversight for approximately three years.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    [FR Doc. 2017-18148 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-55] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-55 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN28AU17.021 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-55 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: The Federal Republic of Nigeria

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

  • Major Defense Equipment * $ 29 million Other $564 million TOTAL $593 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    One hundred (100) GBU-12 (500lb) Paveway II (PW-II) Tailkits One hundred (100) GBU-58 (250lb) PW-II Tailkits Four hundred (400) Laser Guided Rockets including Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) Two thousand (2,000) MK-81 (250lb) bombs Five thousand (5,000) 2.75 inch Hydra 70 Unguided Rockets (70mm rockets) One thousand (1,000) 2.75 inch Hydra 70 Unguided Rockets (practice) Twenty thousand (20,000) Rounds, .50 Caliber Machine Gun Ammo

    Non-Major Defense Equipment (MDE): This request also includes the following Non-MDE: Twelve (12) A-29 Super Tucano aircraft, seven (7) AN/AAQ-22F Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) Sensor and Laser Designators, Initial Spares, Readiness Spares Package, Consumables, Support Equipment, Technical Data, Repair and Return Support, Facilities infrastructure and hangar construction, Night Vision Devices (NVDs), Contract Logistics Services (CLS), Contractor Provided Familiarization and Training, USG Manpower and Services, Field Service Representatives, Training Services (pilot training, USAF training, early A-29 training, flight leader upgrade training, travel and living allowance, maintenance training, specialized training, computer-based training, night vision device training, human rights and international humanitarian law, and munitions training), Training Simulators, Air Worthiness Support, Forward Operating Base Facilities, Forward Operating Location Support, Ferrying, and Non-recurring Engineering. Additionally, all aircraft will include weapons software to support forward looking infrared sensors (FLIRs), ancillary system.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (X8-D-SAB)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: August 2, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Nigeria—A-29 Super Tucano Aircraft, Weapons and Associated Support

    The Government of Nigeria requests twelve (12) A-29 Super Tucano aircraft and weapons, including all associated training, spare parts, aviation and ground support equipment, and hangar, facilities, and infrastructure required to support the program. The estimated total case value is $593 million.

    These aircraft will support Nigerian military operations against terrorist organization Boko Haram and to counter illicit trafficking in Nigeria and the Gulf of Guinea. The Super Tucano is a sustainable platform for counterterrorism, counter insurgency, border surveillance, and illicit trade interdiction operations. The proposed sale will support U.S. foreign policy objectives by helping Nigeria to meet shared counterterrorism objectives for the region. This proposed sale will strengthen the U.S. security relationship with Africa's largest democracy. Nigeria will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor is the Sierra Nevada Corporation, headquartered in Centennial, Colorado. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Nigeria for mobile training teams and contract logistic support.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-55 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(l) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. This sale involves the release of sensitive weapons software technology information to Nigeria. Software associated with the following weapons will be included in the aircraft operational flight program to support a future weapons capability.

    2. Sensitive and/or classified (up to SECRET) elements of the proposed A-29 sale to Nigeria includes the hardware and associated software with: Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) laser guided rockets, Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-12/58 Paveway II laser guided tail kits, and Mark (MK)-81/82 general purpose bombs.

    3. The Hydra 70 Rocket System is a modernized version of the 2.75 inch (70 mm) unguided rocket body with the MK66 Rocket Motor.

    4. The APKWS is a low cost semi-active laser guidance kit developed by BAE Systems which is added to current unguided 70 mm rocket motors and warheads similar to and including the Hydra 70 rocket. It is a low collateral damage weapon that can effectively strike both soft and lightly armored targets. APKWS turns a standard unguided 2.75 inch (70 mm) rocket into a precision laser-guided rocket, classification up to SECRET.

    5. GBU-12/58 Paveway II (PW-II) Tailkits: 500-lb (GBU-12) and 250-lb (GBU-58) are laser-guided ballistic bombs (LGBs) developed by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The LGB is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off of the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal general purpose (GP) warhead and the semi-active guidance corrects for many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. Laser designation for the weapon can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators. The tailkit consists of a laser guidance kit, a computer control group (CCG) and a warhead specific Air Foil Group (AFG), that attach to the nose and tail of MK 81 and MK 82 General Purpose (GP) bomb bodies to create an LGB. This sale includes the tailkits to transform Nigeria's existing 500-lb and 250-lb GP bomb bodies into GBU-12s and GBU-58s respectively. Nigeria is also buying additional GBU-58s, 250-lb (MK-81) guided bombs. The overall weapon is CONFIDENTIAL.

    6. AN/AAQ-22F Brite Star Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) Multi-Sensor Targeting System developed by FLIR. The system is a five field-of-view (FOV) large format thermal imager, three FOV color daylight camera with laser designator for terminal guidance of LGBs and IR-guided rockets. The system is classified as UNCLASSIFIED.

    7. This sale is necessary in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Nigeria.

    [FR Doc. 2017-18201 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-32] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-32 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN28AU17.023 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-32 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: The Government of Thailand

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $23.2 million Other $ 1.7 million Total $24.9 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Five (5) RGM-84L Harpoon Block II Surface Launched Missiles One (1) RTM-84L Harpoon Block II Exercise Missile

    Non-MDE includes: Also included are containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor representatives technical assistance, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (XX-P-AKR)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: TH-P-AKP

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: August 9, 2017

    *As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Thailand—RGM-84L Harpoon Surface Launched Block II Missiles

    The Government of Thailand has requested the possible sale of up to five (5) RGM-84L Harpoon Block II Surface Launched Missiles and one (1) RTM-84L Harpoon Block II Exercise Missile. Also included are containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor representatives technical assistance, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $24.9 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to strengthen the U.S.-Thai strategic relationship and to improve the security of an important partner.

    The proposed sale will provide enhanced capabilities in effective defense of critical sea lines. Thailand intends to use the missiles on its DW3000 Class Frigate. The proposed sale of the Harpoon Block II missiles and support will increase the Royal Thai Navy's maritime partnership potential. Thailand has purchased Harpoon missiles previously and will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be the Boeing Company, St. Louis, MO. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require annual trips to Thailand involving U.S. Government personnel and contractor representatives for technical reviews, support, and oversight for approximately five years.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-32 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The RGM-84L Harpoon Surface Launched Block II missile system, to include publications, documentation, operations, supply, maintenance, and training to be conveyed with this proposed sale have the highest classification level of CONFIDENTIAL. The Harpoon Block II missile is a non-nuclear tactical weapon system currently in service in the U.S. Navy and in 29 other foreign nations. It provides a day, night, and adverse weather, standoff surface-to-surface capability and is an effective Anti-Surface Warfare missile. The RGM-84L incorporates components, software, and technical design information that are considered sensitive.

    2. The following components being conveyed by the proposed sale are considered sensitive and are classified CONFIDENTIAL:

    a. The Radar Seeker

    b. The GPS/INS System

    c. Operational Flight Program Software

    d. Missile operational characteristics and performance data

    These elements are essential for the Harpoon Block II missile to selectively engage hostile targets under a wide range of operational, tactical and environmental conditions. With respect to GPS, Thailand has been approved for Precision Positioning Service (PPS).

    3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that the Government of Thailand can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary to the furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Thailand.

    [FR Doc. 2017-18191 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-57-000.

    Applicants: Houston Pipe Line Company LP.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)+(g): Rate Election of Houston Pipe Line Company LP Effective November 1, 2017; Filing Type: 1300.

    Filed Date: 8/16/17.

    Accession Number: 201708165058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/17.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-900-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Report Filing: DETI—Informational Fuel Report—2017.

    Filed Date: 6/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20170630-5330.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-962-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Filing Withdrawal: Withdrawal of Tenaska Capacity Release Umbrella Agreement.

    Filed Date: 8/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170816-5113.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    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 date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18150 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3576-014; ER11-3401-013.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Golden Spread Panhandle Wind Ranch, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 29, 2017 Notice of Non-material Change in Status of Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Filed Date: 8/22/17.

    Accession Number: 20170822-5042.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1766-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-08-21_Amended RSG Compliance filing to be effective 4/1/2011.

    Filed Date: 8/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170821-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2225-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-08-21_Compliance to RSG Rehearing Filing to be effective 8/21/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170821-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2355-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-08-21_Amended RSG Exemptions Compliance filing to be effective 8/31/2010.

    Filed Date: 8/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170821-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1913-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC.

    Description: Errata to June 27, 2017 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC tariff filing (Requesting Administrative Cancellation of Tariff).

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2197-001.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Rate Schedule No. 155 NPC/CRC Agreement Executed to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/22/17.

    Accession Number: 20170822-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2340-000.

    Applicants: Golden Hills North Wind, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Golden Hills North Wind, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 9/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170821-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2341-000.

    Applicants: CA Flats Solar 130, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: CA Flats Solar 130, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 8/22/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170821-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    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 22, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18149 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0888] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before October 27, 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 notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0888.

    Title: Section 1.221, Notice of hearing; appearances; Section 1.229 Motions to enlarge, change, or delete issues; Section 1.248 Prehearing conferences; hearing conferences; Section 76.7, Petition Procedures; Section 76.9, Confidentiality of Proprietary Information; Section 76.61, Dispute Concerning Carriage; Section 76.914, Revocation of Certification; Section 76.1001, Unfair Practices; Section 76.1003, Program Access Proceedings; Section 76.1302, Carriage Agreement Proceedings; Section 76.1513, Open Video Dispute Resolution.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 684 respondents; 684 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 6.4 to 95.4 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in. 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), 303(r), 338, 340, 534, 535, 536, 543, 548 and 573.

    Total Annual Burden: 34,816 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $3,671,370.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: A party that wishes to have confidentiality for proprietary information with respect to a submission it is making to the Commission must file a petition pursuant to the pleading requirements in Section 76.7 and use the method described in Sections 0.459 and 76.9 to demonstrate that confidentiality is warranted.

    Needs and Uses: Commission rules specify pleading and other procedural requirements for parties filing petitions or complaints under Part 76 of the Commission's rules, including petitions for special relief, cable carriage complaints, program access complaints, and program carriage complaints. Therefore, the information collection requirements contained in this collection are as follows:

    47 CFR 1.221(h) requires that, in a program carriage complaint proceeding filed pursuant to § 76.1302 that the Chief, Media Bureau refers to an administrative law judge for an initial decision, each party, in person or by attorney, shall file a written appearance within five calendar days after the party informs the Chief Administrative Law Judge that it elects not to pursue alternative dispute resolution pursuant to § 76.7(g)(2) or, if the parties have mutually elected to pursue alternative dispute resolution pursuant to § 76.7(g)(2), within five calendar days after the parties inform the Chief Administrative Law Judge that they have failed to resolve their dispute through alternative dispute resolution. The written appearance shall state that the party will appear on the date fixed for hearing and present evidence on the issues specified in the hearing designation order.

    47 CFR 1.229(b)(2) requires that, in a program carriage complaint proceeding filed pursuant to § 76.1302 that the Chief, Media Bureau refers to an administrative law judge for an initial decision, a motion to enlarge, change, or delete issues shall be filed within 15 calendar days after the deadline for submitting written appearances pursuant to § 1.221(h), except that persons not named as parties to the proceeding in the designation order may file such motions with their petitions to intervene up to 30 days after publication of the full text or a summary of the designation order in the Federal Register.

    47 CFR 1.229(b)(3) provides that any person desiring to file a motion to modify the issues after the expiration of periods specified in paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (b)(2) of § 1.229, shall set forth the reason why it was not possible to file the motion within the prescribed period.

    47 CFR 1.248(a) provides that the initial prehearing conference as directed by the Commission shall be scheduled 30 days after the effective date of the order designating a case for hearing, unless good cause is shown for scheduling such conference at a later date, except that for program carriage complaints filed pursuant to § 76.1302 that the Chief, Media Bureau refers to an administrative law judge for an initial decision, the initial prehearing conference shall be held no later than 10 calendar days after the deadline for submitting written appearances pursuant to § 1.221(h) or within such shorter or longer period as the Commission may allow on motion or notice consistent with the public interest.

    47 CFR 1.248(b) provides that the initial prehearing conference as directed by the presiding officer shall be scheduled 30 days after the effective date of the order designating a case for hearing, unless good cause is shown for scheduling such conference at a later date, except that for program carriage complaints filed pursuant to § 76.1302 that the Chief, Media Bureau refers to an administrative law judge for an initial decision, the initial prehearing conference shall be held no later than 10 calendar days after the deadline for submitting written appearances pursuant to § 1.221(h) or within such shorter or longer period as the presiding officer may allow on motion or notice consistent with the public interest.

    47 CFR 76.7. Pleadings seeking to initiate FCC action must adhere to the requirements of Section 76.6 (general pleading requirements) and Section 76.7 (initiating pleading requirements). Section 76.7 is used for numerous types of petitions and special relief petitions, including general petitions seeking special relief, waivers, enforcement, show cause, forfeiture and declaratory ruling procedures.

    47 CFR 76.7(g)(2) provides that, in a proceeding initiated pursuant to § 76.7 that is referred to an administrative law judge, the parties may elect to resolve the dispute through alternative dispute resolution procedures, or may proceed with an adjudicatory hearing, provided that the election shall be submitted in writing to the Commission and the Chief Administrative Law Judge.

    47 CFR 76.9. A party that wishes to have confidentiality for proprietary information with respect to a submission it is making to the FCC must file a petition pursuant to the pleading requirements in Section 76.7 and use the method described in Sections 0.459 and 76.9 to demonstrate that confidentiality is warranted. The petitions filed pursuant to this provision are contained in the existing information collection requirement and are not changed by the rule changes.

    47 CFR 76.61(a) permits a local commercial television station or qualified low power television station that is denied carriage or channel positioning or repositioning in accordance with the must-carry rules by a cable operator to file a complaint with the FCC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76.7. Section 76.61(b) permits a qualified local noncommercial educational television station that believes a cable operator has failed to comply with the FCC's signal carriage or channel positioning requirements (Sections 76.56 through 76.57) to file a complaint with the FCC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76.7.

    47 CFR 76.61(a)(1) states that whenever a local commercial television station or a qualified low power television station believes that a cable operator has failed to meet its carriage or channel positioning obligations, pursuant to Sections 76.56 and 76.57, such station shall notify the operator, in writing, of the alleged failure and identify its reasons for believing that the cable operator is obligated to carry the signal of such station or position such signal on a particular channel.

    47 CFR 76.61(a)(2) states that the cable operator shall, within 30 days of receipt of such written notification, respond in writing to such notification and either commence to carry the signal of such station in accordance with the terms requested or state its reasons for believing that it is not obligated to carry such signal or is in compliance with the channel positioning and repositioning and other requirements of the must-carry rules. If a refusal for carriage is based on the station's distance from the cable system's principal headend, the operator's response shall include the location of such headend. If a cable operator denies carriage on the basis of the failure of the station to deliver a good quality signal at the cable system's principal headend, the cable operator must provide a list of equipment used to make the measurements, the point of measurement and a list and detailed description of the reception and over-the-air signal processing equipment used, including sketches such as block diagrams and a description of the methodology used for processing the signal at issue, in its response.

    47 CFR 76.914(c) permits a cable operator seeking revocation of a franchising authority's certification to file a petition with the FCC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76.7.

    47 CFR 76.1003(a) permits any multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) aggrieved by conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the FCC's competitive access to cable programming rules to commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the FCC to obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint, which must be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by Section 76.1003.

    47 CFR 76.1001(b)(2) permits any multichannel video programming distributor to commence an adjudicatory proceeding by filing a complaint with the Commission alleging that a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor, has engaged in an unfair act involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming, which must be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in § 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by §§ 76.1001(b)(2) and 76.1003. In program access cases involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming, the defendant has 45 days from the date of service of the complaint to file an answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. A complainant shall have the burden of proof that the defendant's alleged conduct has the purpose or effect of hindering significantly or preventing the complainant from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers; an answer to such a complaint shall set forth the defendant's reasons to support a finding that the complainant has not carried this burden. In addition, a complainant alleging that a terrestrial cable programming vendor has engaged in discrimination shall have the burden of proof that the terrestrial cable programming vendor is wholly owned by, controlled by, or under common control with a cable operator or cable operators, satellite cable programming vendor or vendors in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or satellite broadcast programming vendor or vendors; an answer to such a complaint shall set forth the defendant's reasons to support a finding that the complainant has not carried this burden.

    47 CFR 76.1003(b) requires any aggrieved MVPD intending to file a complaint under this section to first notify the potential defendant cable operator, and/or the potential defendant satellite cable programming vendor or satellite broadcast programming vendor, that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained in Sections 76.1001 or 76.1002 of this part. The notice must be sufficiently detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the nature of the potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a complaint with the Commission.

    47 CFR 76.1003(c) describes the required contents of a program access complaint, in addition to the requirements of Section 76.7 of this part.

    47 CFR 76.1003(c)(3) requires a program access complaint to contain evidence that the complainant competes with the defendant cable operator, or with a multichannel video programming distributor that is a customer of the defendant satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming vendor or a terrestrial cable programming vendor alleged to have engaged in conduct described in § 76.1001(b)(1).

    47 CFR 76.1003(d) states that, in a case where recovery of damages is sought, the complaint shall contain a clear and unequivocal request for damages and appropriate allegations in support of such claim.

    47 CFR 76.1003(e)(1) requires cable operators, satellite cable programming vendors, or satellite broadcast programming vendors whom expressly reference and rely upon a document in asserting a defense to a program access complaint filed or in responding to a material allegation in a program access complaint filed pursuant to Section 76.1003, to include such document or documents, such as contracts for carriage of programming referenced and relied on, as part of the answer. Except as otherwise provided or directed by the Commission, any cable operator, satellite cable programming vendor or satellite broadcast programming vendor upon which a program access complaint is served under this section shall answer within twenty (20) days of service of the complaint, provided that the answer shall be filed within forty-five (45) days of service of the complaint if the complaint alleges a violation of Section 628(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or Section 76.1001(a).

    47 CFR 76.1003(e)(2) requires an answer to an exclusivity complaint to provide the defendant's reasons for refusing to sell the subject programming to the complainant. In addition, the defendant may submit its programming contracts covering the area specified in the complaint with its answer to refute allegations concerning the existence of an impermissible exclusive contract. If there are no contracts governing the specified area, the defendant shall so certify in its answer. Any contracts submitted pursuant to this provision may be protected as proprietary pursuant to Section 76.9 of this part.

    47 CFR 76.1003(e)(3) requires an answer to a discrimination complaint to state the reasons for any differential in prices, terms or conditions between the complainant and its competitor, and to specify the particular justification set forth in Section 76.1002(b) of this part relied upon in support of the differential.

    47 CFR 76.1003(e)(4) requires an answer to a complaint alleging an unreasonable refusal to sell programming to state the defendant's reasons for refusing to sell to the complainant, or for refusing to sell to the complainant on the same terms and conditions as complainant's competitor, and to specify why the defendant's actions are not discriminatory.

    47 CFR 76.1003(f) provides that, within fifteen (15) days after service of an answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, the complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall not contain new matters.

    47 CFR 76.1003(g) states that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which one of three specified events occurs.

    47 CFR 76.1003(h) sets forth the remedies that are available for violations of the program access rules, which include the imposition of damages, and/or the establishment of prices, terms, and conditions for the sale of programming to the aggrieved multichannel video programming distributor, as well as sanctions available under title V or any other provision of the Communications Act.

    47 CFR 76.1003(j) states in addition to the general pleading and discovery rules contained in § 76.7 of this part, parties to a program access complaint may serve requests for discovery directly on opposing parties, and file a copy of the request with the Commission. The respondent shall have the opportunity to object to any request for documents that are not in its control or relevant to the dispute. Such request shall be heard, and determination made, by the Commission. Until the objection is ruled upon, the obligation to produce the disputed material is suspended. Any party who fails to timely provide discovery requested by the opposing party to which it has not raised an objection as described above, or who fails to respond to a Commission order for discovery material, may be deemed in default and an order may be entered in accordance with the allegations contained in the complaint, or the complaint may be dismissed with prejudice.

    47 CFR 76.1003(l) permits a program access complainant seeking renewal of an existing programming contract to file a petition along with its complaint requesting a temporary standstill of the price, terms, and other conditions of the existing programming contract pending resolution of the complaint, to which the defendant will have the opportunity to respond within 10 days of service of the petition, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.

    47 CFR 76.1302(a) states that any video programming vendor or multichannel video programming distributor aggrieved by conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the regulations set forth in this subpart may commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the Commission to obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint. The complaint shall be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by Section 76.1302.

    47 CFR 76.1302(b) states that any aggrieved video programming vendor or multichannel video programming distributor intending to file a complaint under this section must first notify the potential defendant multichannel video programming distributor that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained in Section 76.1301 of this part. The notice must be sufficiently detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the specific nature of the potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a complaint with the Commission.

    47 CFR 76.1302(c) specifies the content of carriage agreement complaints, in addition to the requirements of Section 76.7 of this part.

    47 CFR 76.1302(c)(1) provides that a program carriage complaint filed pursuant to § 76.1302 must contain the following: Whether the complainant is a multichannel video programming distributor or video programming vendor, and, in the case of a multichannel video programming distributor, identify the type of multichannel video programming distributor, the address and telephone number of the complainant, what type of multichannel video programming distributor the defendant is, and the address and telephone number of each defendant.

    47 CFR 76.1302(d) sets forth the evidence that a program carriage complaint filed pursuant to § 76.1302 must contain in order to establish a prima facie case of a violation of § 76.1301.

    47 CFR 76.1302(e)(1) provides that a multichannel video programming distributor upon whom a program carriage complaint filed pursuant to § 76.1302 is served shall answer within sixty (60) days of service of the complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.

    47 CFR 76.1302(e)(2) states that an answer to a program carriage complaint shall address the relief requested in the complaint, including legal and documentary support, for such response, and may include an alternative relief proposal without any prejudice to any denials or defenses raised.

    47 CFR 76.1302(f) states that within twenty (20) days after service of an answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, the complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall not contain new matters.

    47 CFR 76.1302(h) states that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which one of three events occurs.

    47 CFR 76.1302(j)(1) states that upon completion of such adjudicatory proceeding, the Commission shall order appropriate remedies, including, if necessary, mandatory carriage of a video programming vendor's programming on defendant's video distribution system, or the establishment of prices, terms, and conditions for the carriage of a video programming vendor's programming.

    47 CFR 76.1302(k) permits a program carriage complainant seeking renewal of an existing programming contract to file a petition along with its complaint requesting a temporary standstill of the price, terms, and other conditions of the existing programming contract pending resolution of the complaint, to which the defendant will have the opportunity to respond within 10 days of service of the petition, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. To allow for sufficient time to consider the petition for temporary standstill prior to the expiration of the existing programming contract, the petition for temporary standstill and complaint shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the existing programming contract.

    47 CFR 76.1513(a) permits any party aggrieved by conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the FCC's regulations or in section 653 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 573) to commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the Commission to obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint, which must be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by Section 76.1513.

    47 CFR 76.1513(b) provides that an open video system operator may not provide in its carriage contracts with programming providers that any dispute must be submitted to arbitration, mediation, or any other alternative method for dispute resolution prior to submission of a complaint to the Commission.

    47 CFR 76.1513(c) requires that any aggrieved party intending to file a complaint under this section must first notify the potential defendant open video system operator that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained in this part or in Section 653 of the Communications Act. The notice must be in writing and must be sufficiently detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the specific nature of the potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a complaint with the Commission.

    47 CFR 76.1513(d) describes the contents of an open video system complaint.

    47 CFR 76.1513(e) addresses answers to open video system complaints.

    47 CFR 76.1513(f) states within twenty (20) days after service of an answer, the complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall not contain new matters.

    47 CFR 76.1513(g) requires that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which one of three events occurs.

    47 CFR 76.1513(h) states that upon completion of the adjudicatory proceeding, the Commission shall order appropriate remedies, including, if necessary, the requiring carriage, awarding damages to any person denied carriage, or any combination of such sanctions. Such order shall set forth a timetable for compliance, and shall become effective upon release.

    Federal Communications Commission. Sheryl D. Todd, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18210 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10178—American Marine Bank, Bainbridge Island, Washington

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for American Marine Bank, Bainbridge Island, Washington (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of American Marine Bank on January 29, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18152 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10268—Sterling Bank, Lantana, Florida

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Sterling Bank, Lantana, Florida (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Sterling Bank on July 23, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18154 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10509—Northern Star Bank, Mankato, Minnesota

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Northern Star Bank, Mankato, Minnesota (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Northern Star Bank on December 19, 2014. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18113 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10249—Washington First Intl Bank Seattle, Washington

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Washington First Intl Bank, Seattle, Washington (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Washington First Intl Bank on June 11, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18153 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10341—Peoples State Bank, Hamtramck, Michigan

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Peoples State Bank, Hamtramck, Michigan (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Peoples State Bank on February 11, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18155 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10410—Mid City Bank, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Mid City Bank, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Mid City Bank, Inc. on November 4, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18111 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10258—Mainstreet Savings Bank, FSB, Hastings, Michigan

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Mainstreet Savings Bank, FSB, Hastings, Michigan (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Mainstreet Savings Bank, FSB on July 16, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Date: August 22, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18108 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10506—NBRS Financial, Rising Sun, Maryland

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for NBRS Financial, Rising Sun, Maryland (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of NBRS Financial on October 17, 2014. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18112 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10111—Mainstreet Bank, Forest Lake, Minnesota

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Mainstreet Bank, Forest Lake, Minnesota (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Mainstreet Bank on August 28, 2009. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18151 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10409—All American Bank, Des Plaines, Illinois

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for All American Bank, Des Plaines, Illinois (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of All American Bank on October 28, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18110 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10485—Bank of Wausau, Wausau, Wisconsin

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Bank of Wausau, Wausau, Wisconsin (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Bank of Wausau on August 9, 2013. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18156 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10301—First Suburban National Bank, Maywood, Illinois

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for First Suburban National Bank, Maywood, Illinois (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of First Suburban National Bank on October 22, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated August 22, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18109 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0180; Docket No. 2017-0053; Sequence 12] Information Collection; Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction Contracts AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Biobased Procurements.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0180, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction Contracts, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000-0180. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0180, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction Contracts. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0180, “Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction Contracts” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Sosa/IC 9000-0180, Biobased Procurements.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0180, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction Contracts. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential 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. Charles Gray, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, at telephone 703-795-6328, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.223-2, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts, requires prime contractors to report annually the product types and dollar values of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-designated biobased products purchased to the System for Award Management (SAM) Web site. The information reported by prime contractors enables Federal agencies to report annually to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) concerning actions taken to implement and measure progress in carrying out the preference for biobased products required under section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, codified at 7 U.S.C. 8102.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    To determine the number of contractors performing construction and service contracts that may involve the purchase of USDA-designated biobased products, fiscal year 2016 data in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) was reviewed to calculate the number entities with unique DUNS numbers that were awarded contracts for the following selected Product Services Codes: A—Research and Development; F—Natural Resources Management; J—Maintenance, Repair, and Rebuilding of Equipment; M—Operation of Government-Owned Facility; S—Utilities and Housekeeping Services; T—Photographic, Mapping, Printing, and Publication Services; Y—Construction of Structures and Facilities; and Z—Maintenance, Repair or Alteration of Real Property. The clause at FAR 52.223-2 will apply to the majority of the contract actions in the selected PSCs

    The estimated total burden is as follows:

    Respondents: 51,457.

    Responses per Respondent: 5.

    Total Annual Responses: 257,285.

    Hours per Response: 5.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,286,425.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: Annually.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0180, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction Contracts, in all correspondence.

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18105 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0001] Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee (CTGTAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on October 12, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503) Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

    For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be Webcast and will be available at the following link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/ctgtac101217. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Prabhakara L. Atreya or Denise Royster, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6306, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8006, [email protected] and 240-402-8158, [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: On October 12, 2017, the CTGTAC will meet in an open session to discuss and make recommendations on the safety and effectiveness of biologics license application (BLA) for voretigene neparvovec (BLA 125610), submitted by Spark Therapeutics, Inc. The proposed indication (use) for this product is for the treatment of patients with vision loss due to confirmed biallelic RPE65 mutation-associated retinal dystrophy.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before October 4, 2017. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11:15 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before September 26, 2017. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by September 27, 2017.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Prabhakara Atreya at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18161 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4561] Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on December 7, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2017-N-4561. The docket will close on December 6, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by December 6, 2017. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 6, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of December 6, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Comments received on or before November 22, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency.

    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-N-4561 for “Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The committee will discuss appropriate patient selection criteria and clinical trial design features, including acceptable endpoints, for demonstrating clinical benefit for drugs intended to treat interstitial cystitis and bladder pain syndrome. The committee will also discuss whether bladder pain syndrome and interstitial cystitis reflect overlapping or different populations, and whether it is appropriate to assess efficacy in the same way for both conditions.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the docket (see ADDRESSES) on or before November 22, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before November 14, 2017. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by November 15, 2017.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18131 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services (NACRHHS) meeting. The meeting will be open to the public. Informaton about the NACRHHS meeting can be obtained by accessing the following Web site: http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/rural/.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 11, 2017, 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MDT; September 12, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. MDT; and September 13, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. MDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    This meeting will be held at the Spring Hill Suites located at 424 E. Parkcenter Blvd., Boise, Idaho 83706, (208) 342-1044.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Hirsch, MSLS, Administrative Coordinator, National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, 17W29C, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone (301) 443-0835, Fax (301) 443-2803.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NACRHHS provides counsel and recommendations to the Secretary with respect to the delivery, research, development, and administration of health and human services in rural areas.

    The meeting on Monday, September 11, will be called to order at 8:45 a.m. by the Chairperson of the Committee, The Honorable Ronnie Musgrove. The Committee will examine the issue of suicide in rural areas and the issue of Rural Health Clinic Modernization. The day will conclude with a period of public comment at approximately 5:15 p.m.

    The Committee will break into Subcommittees and depart for site visits Tuesday morning, September 12, at approximately 8:15 a.m. Subcommittees will visit First Baptist Church, 126 S. Hayes Avenue in Emmett, Idaho and the North Canyon Medical Center, 267 N. Canyon Drive in Gooding, Idaho. The day will conclude at the Spring Hill Suites with a period of public comment at approximately 5:00 p.m.

    The Committee will meet to summarize key findings and develop a work plan for the next quarter and the following meeting on Wednesday morning, September 13, at 8:30 a.m. Persons interested in attending any portion of the meeting should contact Alfred Delena at the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) via telephone at (301) 443-3388 or by email at [email protected]. The Committee meeting agenda will be posted on the Committee's Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/rural/.

    Amy McNulty, Acting Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18139 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Notice of Intent To Establish the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force and Request for Nominations for Task Force Members AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) hereby gives notice of its intent to establish the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force (Task Force) pursuant to section 101 of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. The Task Force will consist of representatives of specific Federal agencies and non-federal individuals and entities who represent diverse disciplines and views. The Task Force will provide advice and recommendations for development of best practices for pain management and prescribing pain medication and a strategy for disseminating such best practices to relevant Federal agencies and the general public.

    Through this notice, HHS is also requesting nominations of individuals who are interested in being considered for appointment to the Task Force. Resumes or curricula vitae from qualified individuals who wish to be considered for appointment as a member of the Task Force are currently being accepted.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be received no later than close of business September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    All nominations must be submitted via email to the attention of Vanila M. Singh, M.D., Chief Medical Officer at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vanila M. Singh, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Telephone: (202) 205-3841; Fax: (202) 205-2107; Email address: [email protected] When the charter for the Task Force has been filed with the appropriate Congressional committees and the Library of Congress, this document will be made available online. Web site information about activities of the Task Force will be provided when the URL has been identified. The charter will include detailed information about the purpose, function, and structure of the Task Force.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 101 of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-198) (CARA) authorizes the Secretary of HHS, in cooperation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense, to convene the Task Force. The Task Force will consist of representatives of specific Federal agencies and non-federal individuals and entities who represent diverse disciplines and views. The Task Force will identify, review, and determine whether there are gaps or inconsistencies in best practices among Federal agencies; propose updates to best practices and recommendations on addressing gaps or inconsistencies; provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any proposed updates and recommendations; and develop a strategy for disseminating information about best practices.

    The Task Force will provide advice and recommendations for development of best practices for pain management and prescribing pain medication and a strategy for disseminating such best practices to relevant Federal agencies and the general public. The functions of the Task Force will be solely advisory in nature. The Task Force will be established as a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee.

    When the charter for the Task Force is approved, it will be filed with the appropriate Congressional committees and the Library of Congress; hard copies of this document will be made available upon request. The approved charter will also be accessible online.

    Objectives and Scope of Activities. The Secretary of HHS, in cooperation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense, shall convene the Task Force to identify, review, and determine whether there are gaps or inconsistencies in best practices among Federal agencies; propose updates to best practices and recommendations on addressing gaps or inconsistencies; provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any proposed updates and recommendations; and develop a strategy for disseminating information about best practices.

    Membership and Designation. The Task Force shall consist of not more than 30 members. The Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS shall select the Chair. The Chair may select a Vice-chair from among Task Force members. The members of the Task Force shall include currently licensed and practicing physicians, dentists, and non-physician prescribers; currently licensed and practicing pharmacists and pharmacies; experts in the fields of pain research and addiction research, including adolescent and young adult addiction; experts on the health of, and prescription opioid use disorders in, members of the Armed Forces and veterans; and experts in the field of minority health. The members of the Task Force shall also include individuals who are appointed to serve under CARA subsection 101(c)(5) as representatives of pain management professional organizations; the mental health treatment community; the addiction treatment community, including individuals in recovery from substance use disorder; pain advocacy groups, including patients; veteran service organizations; groups with expertise on overdose reversal, including first responders; State medical boards; and hospitals. The Secretary shall ensure that the membership of the Task Force includes individuals who represent rural and underserved areas. The composition of the Task Force shall also include federal members who shall serve as representatives for the following departments and agency: The Department of Health and Human Services and relevant HHS agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

    Members who are not officers or employees of the United States Government and who are not appointed as representative members under CARA subsection 101(c)(5) shall be classified as special government employees (SGEs). Members of the Task Force who are officers or employees of the United States Government shall be appointed to serve at the discretion of the head of the respective Federal departments and agency. All members shall be appointed to serve for the duration of time that the Task Force is authorized to operate. Any member who is appointed to fill the vacancy of an unexpired term shall be appointed to serve for the remainder of that term.

    Pursuant to advance written agreement, members of the Task Force who are not officers or employees of the United States Government shall receive no stipend for the advisory service that they render as members of the Task Force. Members appointed as SGEs shall receive per diem and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred in relation to performing duties for the Task Force, as authorized by law under 5 U.S.C. 5703 for persons who are employed intermittently to perform services for the Federal government and in accordance with Federal travel regulations. Members appointed as representatives of a designated entity under CARA subsection 101(c)(5) may be allowed to receive per diem and reimbursement for any applicable expenses that are incurred to conduct business related to the Task Force. Federal employees assigned as advisory committee members or staff members remain covered under their current compensation system.

    Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings. The Task Force shall meet not less than two times a calendar year, depending upon the availability of funds. The meetings may be conducted by teleconference or videoconference at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer. The meetings shall be open to the public, except as determined otherwise by the Secretary, or other official to whom authority has been delegated, in accordance with the guidelines under Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c). Notice of all meetings shall be provided to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Meetings shall be conducted and records of the proceedings shall be kept, as required by applicable laws and departmental policies. A quorum is required for the Task Force to meet to conduct business. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Task Force's members. When the Secretary or the Secretary's designee determines that a meeting shall be closed or partially closed to the public, in accordance with provisions of Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), then a report shall be prepared by the Designated Federal Officer that includes, at a minimum, a list of members and their business addresses, the Task Force's functions, date and place of the meeting, and a summary of the Task Force's activities and recommendations made during the fiscal year. A copy of the report shall be provided to the Department Committee Management Officer.

    Nominations: Nominations, including self-nominations, of individuals who have the specified expertise and knowledge will be considered for appointment as members of the Task Force. A nomination should include, at a minimum, the following for each nominee: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination, and a statement from the nominee that indicates that the individual is willing to serve as a member of the Task Force, if selected; (2) the nominator's name, address, and daytime telephone number, and the address, telephone number, and email address of the individual being nominated; and (3) a current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae or resume, which should be limited to no more than 10 pages.

    Every effort will be made to ensure that the composition of the Task Force includes individuals from various geographic locations, including rural and underserved areas; racial and ethnic minorities; genders, and persons living with disabilities.

    Individuals other than officers or employees of the United States government being considered for appointment as members of the Task Force will be required to complete and submit a report of their financial holdings. An ethics review must be conducted to ensure that individuals appointed as members of the Task Force are not involved in any activity that may pose a potential conflict of interest for the official duties that are to be performed. This is a federal ethics requirement that must be satisfied upon entering the position and annually throughout the established term of appointment on the Task Force.

    Authority: Section 101 of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-198) authorizes establishment of the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force. The Task Force will be governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of Federal advisory committees.

    Dated: August 21, 2017. Donald Wright, Acting Assistant Secretary for Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18182 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [Document Identifier: OS-0990-new] Agency Information Collection Request. 30-Day Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherrette Funn, [email protected] or (202) 795-7714. When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-30D and project title for reference

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (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.

    Project Title: Assessment of the Impact of Energy Development on the Behavioral Health of Women in Western North Dakota and Eastern Montana, The Region VIII Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Office on Women's Health (OWH).

    Abstract: The Office on Women's Health (OWH) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new data collection for the Assessment of the Impact of Energy Development on the Behavioral Health of Women in Western North Dakota and Eastern Montana. Its mission is to provide national leadership and coordination to improve the health of women and girls through policy, education and model programs. Region VIII OASH/OWH is interested in improving women's behavioral health associated with the impact of energy development through gender based data collection and analysis. The discovery and subsequent development of the Parshall Oil Field within the Bakken region of Western North Dakota has led to significant economic opportunity and population growth in the region (Eastern Montana and Western North Dakota). Rapid population growth has many intended and unintended consequences, both positive and negative, on the social and economic environment of the region and, consequently, the population's health and well-being.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: There are well-documented environmental health issues associated with oil and gas development, including air, water, soil, noise, and light pollution. However, there are additional social, physical and mental health effects that are less well documented. Current research is very limited, but preliminary evidence suggests that women have unmet behavioral health needs due in part to the energy development and population surge in region. These data will ultimately be used to understand the impact of energy development on the behavioral health of women in Eastern Montana and Western North Dakota. There will be a final report that is thematically organized and describes key findings and strategic recommendations for Region VIII OASH/OWH to consider supporting future evidence-based program development and implementation, policy recommendations, and future research.

    Likely Respondents: Data for this assessment will be collected through three mechanisms—a survey of women living in the assessment geography, focus groups with a cross-section of women and other key groups living in the assessment geography, key leaders and stakeholders across a variety of governmental and non-governmental sectors.

    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
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Community Survey 500 1 15/60 125 Focus Groups 240 1 90/60 360 Interviews 40 1 60/60 40 Total 780 1 40.4/60 525
    Terry S. Clark, Asst Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18117 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, 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 20-21, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kelly Y. Poe, Ph.D., Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F40B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5036, [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 22, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18121 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Kornak, 240-627-3705, [email protected]. Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by communicating with the indicated licensing contact at the Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852; tel. 301-496-2644. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of unpublished patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description follows.

    HIV Targets CD62L on Central Memory T Cells Through Viral Envelope Glycans for Adhesion and Induces Selectin Shedding for Viral Release Description of Technology

    Despite the success of anti-retroviral therapy in controlling HIV in infected individuals, treatment is less effective at eliminating HIV viral reservoirs. The nature of HIV reservoirs and the factors controlling their size and release are a major research focus for achieving a cure for HIV/AIDS.

    NIAID researchers have identified L-selectin/CD62L as a new target for treating HIV by inhibiting viral release from infected cells. They found that shedding of CD62L on T cells is required for the efficient release of HIV virus from infected cells. Further, they have shown that inhibition of CD62L shedding dramatically reduced HIV-1 infection and viral release from both viremic and aviremic CD4+ T cells. Therefore, inhibitors for CD62L sheddase can function as an anti-HIV treatment that may be effective alone or in combination with existing therapeutics.

    This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.

    Potential Commercial Applications

    • New target for HIV therapeutic development.

    Competitive Advantages

    • This invention comprises a method of treating HIV using therapeutics geared toward viral release and entry, distinguishing it from other antiviral candidates with its method of action.

    • CD62L is a new target for HIV

    Development Stage

    • In vitro studies; Proof-of-concept studies.

    Inventors Peter Sun, NIAID, NIH Joseph Kononchik, NIAID, NIH Joanna Ireland, NIAID, NIH Ruiping Wang, NIAID, NIH

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-261-2015/0—PCT No. PCT/US2016/068713 filed 12/27/2016.

    Licensing Contact: Chris Kornak, 240-627-3705, [email protected].

    Collaborative Research Opportunity: The Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office (TTIPO) is seeking parties interested in collaborative research to further co-develop this technology by identifying pharmacological compounds inhibiting CD62L shedding by using high throughput compound screening. For collaboration opportunities, please contact Chris Kornak, 240-627-3705, [email protected].

    Dated: August 15, 2017. Suzanne Frisbie, Deputy Director, Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18137 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director; Notice of Charter Renewal

    It is determined that the Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.

    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, was renewed for an additional two-year period on August 15, 2017.

    Inquiries may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or [email protected]

    Dated: August 18, 2017. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18197 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting 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 on Aging Initial Review Group; Behavior and Social Science of Aging Review Committee.

    Date: October 5-6, 2017.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 23, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18199 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection: 60-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance To Support the Safe to Sleep® Campaign at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Lorena Kaplan, M.P.H., CHES, Office of Communications, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Room 2A32, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, or call non-toll free number (301) 496-6670 or Email your request, including your address to [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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.

    Proposed Collection Title: Generic Clearance to Support the Safe to Sleep® Campaign at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 0925-0701 Reinstatement without Change Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: This is a request to reinstate without change a generic clearance that would be used for submissions specific to the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Safe to Sleep® (STS) public education campaign. Submissions for the STS campaign will be used to assess the understanding and reach of STS campaign materials and messages, and to monitor and improve campaign activities such as training workshops and overall implementation. The purpose of this information collection is to monitor and modify campaign activities, to plan future campaign activities, to develop messages and materials, and to develop distribution and outreach strategies that are effective at communicating their message to bring about the intended response, awareness, and/or behavioral change for the target audiences. This generic clearance will enable the NICHD to: (1) More efficiently assess the implementation of campaign activities; (2) better understand the target audiences' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward STS messages and materials; (3) better understand how the campaign activities have influenced the target audiences' behaviors and practices; and (4) monitor and improve activities such as trainings, materials, and messages. Having a way to gather feedback on the STS campaign activities is critical to assessing the reach and effect of campaign efforts. Data collected for the campaign can inform where future STS campaign resources can produce the most meaningful results.

    Data collected for the STS campaign generic clearance will be used by a number of audiences, including STS campaign staff, NICHD leadership, STS campaign collaborators, Federal SUID/SIDS Workgroup members, SUID/SIDS stakeholders, clinical and maternal and child health professionals. These audiences may use the information collections to: (1) Develop new campaign messages, materials, and/or training curricula; (2) monitor and improve campaign activities; (3) make decisions about campaign activities; (4) inform current campaign activities; and (5) inform and/or change practices and behaviors of program participants.

    Examples of the types of information collections that could be included under this generic clearance include: Focus groups and in-depth interviews with parents/caregivers and/or health professionals to get feedback on distribution and outreach activities, and/or campaign messages; and Surveys with parents/caregivers and/or health professionals to: (1) Assess the usefulness of the new STS campaign materials, including print and online materials and a video, (2) track outreach experiences of program participants, (3) assess training participants' changes in knowledge related to safe infant sleep behavior and implementation of outreach methods taught, and (4) assess program participants' resource needs.

    The sub-studies for this generic clearance will be small scale, designed to obtain results frequently and quickly to guide campaign development and implementation, inform campaign direction, and be used internally for campaign management purposes. NICHD's current scope and capacity for STS generic sub-studies is non-existent and this request would fill this gap.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 12,920.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Type of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number
  • of responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • Focus Groups General Public 45 1 1 45 Interviews General Public 45 1 1 45 Pre/Post Tests General Public 3,500 2 15/60 1,750 Pre/Post Tests Health Professionals 20,000 2 15/60 10,000 Surveys Health Professionals 2,000 1 30/60 1,000 Tracking/Feedback Form Health Educators 40 2 1 80 Total 25,630 49,170 12,920
    Dated: August 23, 2017. Jennifer Guimond, Project Clearance Liaison, <E T="03">Eunice Kennedy Shriver</E> National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18196 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center For Scientific Review; 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR: Development of Appropriate Pediatric Formulations and Pediatric Drug Delivery Systems.

    Date: September 21-22, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Paek-Gyu Lee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4201, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 613-2064, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Cancer-Related Behavioral Research through Integrating Existing Data.

    Date: September 22, 2017.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Suzanne Ryan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3139, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1712, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior Integrated Review Group; Psychosocial Risk and Disease Prevention Study Section.

    Date: September 25-26, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Stacey FitzSimmons, Ph.D., MPH., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3114, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-9956, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group; Health Services Organization and Delivery Study Section.

    Date: September 25-26, 2017.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Wyndham Grand Chicago Riverfront, 71 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Contact Person: Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3164, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806-0009, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-16-089: Imaging and Biomarkers for Early Detection of Aggressive Cancer.

    Date: September 25, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Xiang-Ning Li, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5112, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1744, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: August 21, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18118 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (NICHD) AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces our intent to submit this collection to OMB for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Jennifer Guimond, Project Clearance Liaison, Office of Science Policy, Reporting, and Program Analysis, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Room 2A18, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 496-1877 or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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.

    Proposed Collection Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (NICHD), 0925-0643, Expiration Date 10/31/2014, EXTENSION, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: There are no changes being requested for this submission. The proposed information collection activity provides a means to 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 information about the NICHD's 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 NICHD and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the NICHD's services will be unavailable.

    The NICHD will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

    • The collections are voluntary;

    • The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

    • The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

    • Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

    • Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;

    • Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;

    • Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

    • Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does 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.

    As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 4,950.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • Conference/Training—Pre and Post Surveys 100 1 15/60 25 Usability Testing 100 1 30/60 50 Focus Groups 750 1 1 750 Customer Satisfaction Survey 13,500 1 15/60 3,375 In-depth Interviews or Small Discussion Group 750 1 1 750 Total 15,200 15,200 4,950
    Dated: August 23, 2017. Jennifer Guimond, Project Clearance Liaison, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18195 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Secretary Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee meeting, October 4, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Conference Room C/D, Bethesda, MD 20852 which was published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2017, 82 FR 37595, pages 37595-37596.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: August 22, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18123 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.

    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 Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel, NIBIB P41 Review (2018/01).

    Date: September 17-19, 2017.

    Time: 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard Los Angeles LA Live, 901 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90015.

    Contact Person: Ruixia Zhou, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Democracy Two Building, Suite 957, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-4773, [email protected]

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18122 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting 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/or contract proposals 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 and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Council for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering NACBIB Council Meeting, September, 2017.

    Date: September 12, 2017.

    Open: 9:00 a.m. to 12:40 p.m.

    Agenda: Report from the Institute Director, other Institute Staff and scientific presentation.

    Place: The William F. Bolger Center, Franklin Building, Classroom 4, 9600 Newbridge Drive, Potomac, MD 20854.

    Closed: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.

    Place: The William F. Bolger Center, Franklin Building, Classroom 4, 9600 Newbridge Drive, Potomac, MD 20854.

    Contact Person: David T. George, Ph.D., Acting Associate Director, Office of Research Administration, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 920, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://www.nibib1.nih.gov/about/NACBIB/NACBIB.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18120 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of an Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (IPRCC) meeting.

    The meeting will feature invited speakers and discussions of committee business items including updates on the Federal Pain Research Strategy and new pain initiatives.

    The meeting will be open to the public and accessible by live webcast and conference call.

    Name of Committee: Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee.

    Type of meeting: Open Meeting.

    Date: October 23, 2017.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. *Eastern Time*—Approximate end time.

    Agenda: The meeting will feature invited speakers and discussions of Committee business items including updates on the Federal Pain Research Strategy and new pain initiatives.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31C, 6th Floor, Room 6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Cost: The meeting is free and open to the public.

    Webcast Live: http://videocast.nih.gov/.

    Deadlines: Notification of intent to present oral comments: Monday, October 17, 2017, by 5:00 p.m. ET. Submission of written/electronic statement for oral comments: Monday, October 17, 2017, by 5:00 p.m. ET. Submission of written comments: Monday, October 17, 2017, by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    Access: Medical Center Metro (Red Line). Visitor Information: http://www.nih.gov/about/visitor/index.htm.

    Contact Person: Linda L. Porter, Ph.D., Pain Policy Advisor, Office of Pain Policy, Officer of the Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Room 8A31, Bethesda, MD 20892, Phone: (301) 451-4460, Email: [email protected]

    Please Note: Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee must notify the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, October 17, 2017, with their request to present oral comments at the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations must submit a written/electronic copy of the oral statement/comments including a brief description of the organization represented by 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, October 17, 2017.

    Statements submitted will become a part of the public record. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments on behalf of that organization, and presentations will be limited to three to five minutes per speaker, depending on number of speakers to be accommodated within the allotted time. Speakers will be assigned a time to speak in the order of the date and time when their request to speak is received, along with the required submission of the written/electronic statement by the specified deadline. If special accommodations are needed, please email the Contact Person listed above.

    In addition, any interested person may submit written comments to the IPRCC prior to the meeting by sending the comments to the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday, October 17, 2017. The comments should include the name and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. All written comments received by the deadlines for both oral and written public comments will be provided to the IPRCC for their consideration and will become part of the public record.

    The meeting will be open to the public and webcast live on the Internet. If you experience any technical problems with the webcast, please call the NIH IT Service Desk at (301) 496-4357, toll free (866) 319-4357, for webcast issues.

    Individuals who participate in person or by using the web service and who need special assistance, such as captioning, should submit a request to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least seven days prior to the meeting.

    As a part of security procedures, attendees should be prepared to present a photo ID during the security process to get on the NIH campus. For a full description, please see: http://www.nih.gov/about/visitorsecurity.htm.

    Information about the IPRCC is available on the Web site: http://iprcc.nih.gov/.

    Dated: August 23, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18200 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting 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 on Aging Initial Review Group; Neuroscience of Aging Review Committee.

    Date: October 5-6, 2017.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Greg Bissonette, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1622, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 23, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18198 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center For Scientific Review; 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: Oncology 2—Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Basic Mechanisms of Cancer Therapeutics Study Section.

    Date: September 18-19, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Double Tree Suites by Hilton. 1707 Fourth Street. Santa Monica, CA 90401.

    Contact Person: Lambratu Rahman Sesay, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3493, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group; Biomedical Imaging Technology A Study Section.

    Date: September 26-27, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, Montgomery County Conference Center Facility, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Ruth Grossman, DDS, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5215, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2409, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group; Medical Imaging Study Section.

    Date: September 26-27, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Xiang-Ning Li, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5112, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1744, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group; Clinical Molecular Imaging and Probe Development.

    Date: September 26-27, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, Montgomery County Conference Center Facility, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Donald Scott Wright, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-8363, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group; Biomedical Imaging Technology B Study Section.

    Date: September 26-27, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Mehrdad Mohseni, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0484, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Lung Cellular, Molecular, and Immunobiology Study Section.

    Date: September 26-27, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA 92109.

    Contact Person: George M. Barnas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2180, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0696, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel, PAR 16-304: Behavioral and Psychological Phenotypes Contributing to Obesity.

    Date: September 26, 2017.

    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Stacey FitzSimmons, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3114, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-9956, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-17-275: Mammalian Models for Translational Research.

    Date: September 27, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Careen K Tang-Toth, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301)435-3504, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 22, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18119 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Proposed Project: Evaluation of the Projects for Assistance in Transition From Homelessness (PATH) Program—New

    SAMHSA is conducting the federally mandated Evaluation of the PATH program. The PATH grant program, created as part of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1990, is administered by SAMHSA's CMHS' Homeless Programs Branch. The PATH program is authorized under Section 521 et seq. of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. The SAMHSA PATH program funds each Fiscal Year the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and four U.S. Territories (the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). The PATH grantees make grants to local, public and non-profit organizations to provide the PATH allowable services.

    The SAMHSA Administrator is required under Section 528 of the PHS Act to evaluate the expenditures of PATH grantees at least once every three years to ensure they are consistent with legislative requirements and to recommend changes to the program design or operations.

    The primary task of the PATH evaluation is to meet the mandates of Section 528 of the PHS Act. The second task of the PATH evaluation is to conduct additional data collection and analysis to further investigate the sources of variation in key program output and outcome measures that are important for program management and policy development. The PATH evaluation builds on the previous evaluation which was finalized in 2016 and was conducted as part of the National Evaluation of SAMHSA Homeless Programs. The PATH evaluation will use web surveys, telephone interviews and site visits to facilitate the collection of information regarding the structures and processes in place at the grantee and provider level. Data regarding the outputs and outcomes of the PATH program will be obtained from grantee applications, providers' intended use plans (IUPs) and from PATH annual report data, which is also required by Section 528 of the PHS Act and is approved under OMB No. 0930-0205.

    Web Surveys will be conducted with all State PATH Contacts (SPCs) and staff from intermediary and PATH provider organizations. The Web Surveys will capture detailed and structured information in the following topics: Selection, monitoring and oversight of PATH providers; populations served; the PATH allowable or eligible services provided; sources for match funds; provision of training and technical assistance; implementation of Evidence Based Practices (EBPs) and innovative practices including SOAR; data reporting, use of data and the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS); and collaboration, coordination and involvement with Continuums of Care (CoCs) and other organizations. The SPCs for all grantees (n = 56), the Project Directors from the PATH provider organizations (n = 500) and staff from the intermediary organizations (n = 28) will be contacted to complete the web surveys. The Web Surveys will be administered once.

    Site Visits will be conducted with a purposive sample of PATH grantees and providers to collect more nuanced information than will be possible with the web survey. Semi-structured discussions will take place with the SPCs, grantee staff, PATH provider staff including the Project Director and other key management staffs, outreach workers, case managers and other clinical treatment staff, key stakeholders at the grantee and provider level and consumers. Five grantees will be selected for Site Visits and visited within each grantee will be one to two PATH providers. The Site Visits will be utilized to collect information regarding: Provider and state characteristics; practices and priorities; context within which the grantees and providers operate; and services available within the areas the providers operate. Also, discussed will be the successes, barriers, and strategies faced by PATH grantees and providers. Focus groups will be held with current or former consumers of the PATH program to obtain consumer perspectives regarding the impact of the programs. The Site Visits will be conducted once.

    Telephone Interviews will be conducted with a sample of SPCs (n = 28) and intermediary (n = 14) and provider staff (n = 60) to explore through open-ended questions in greater detail, explanations for variations among providers in measures that are important for program management and policy development. The outputs of the PATH program include: The number of persons receiving PATH-funded services, outreached/contacted and enrolled; the number of services provided; and the number of referrals provided. The outcome evaluation will be limited, given limitations in available data and will include the number of persons referred to and attaining substance use treatment, primary health services, job training, educational services, housing services, housing placement assistance, income assistance, employment assistance and medical assistance. The Telephone interviews will be conducted once.

    The estimated burden for the reporting requirements for the PATH evaluation is summarized in the table below.

    Annual Burden Table Instrument/activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hour
  • burden
  • Web Surveys SPC Web Survey 1 56 1 56 1 56 PATH Intermediary Web Survey 2 28 1 28 1 28 PATH Provider Web Survey 3 500 1 500 1 500 Telephone Interviews SPC Telephone Interview 4 28 1 28 1 28 PATH Intermediary Telephone Interview 5 14 1 14 1 14 PATH Provider Telephone Interview 6 60 1 60 1 60 Site Visit Interviews Opening Session with State Staff 7 25 1 25 2 50 SPC Session 8 5 1 5 2 10 State Stakeholder Session 9 25 1 25 1.5 37.5 Opening Session with PATH Provider Staff 10 50 1 50 2 100 PATH Provider PD Session 11 10 1 10 2 20 PATH Provider Direct Care Staff Session 12 50 1 50 2 100 Provider Stakeholder Session 13 50 1 50 1.5 75 Consumer Focus Groups 14 100 1 100 1.5 150 Total 1,001 1,001 1,228.5 1 1 respondent × 56 SPCs = 56 respondents. 2 1 respondent × 28 Intermediaries = 28 respondents. 3 1 respondent × 500 PATH providers =500 respondents. 4 1 respondent × 28 SPCs = 28 respondents. 5 1 respondent × 14 Intermediaries = 14 respondents. 6 1 respondent × 60 PATH providers = 60 respondents. 7 5 respondents × 5 site visits = 25 respondents. 8 1 respondent × 5 site visits = 5 respondents. 9 5 respondents × 5 site visits = 25 respondents. 10 5 respondents × 10 site visits (2 providers per state) = 50 respondents. 11 1 respondent × 10 site visits (2 providers per state) = 10 respondents. 12 5 respondents × 10 site visits (2 providers per state) = 50 respondents. 13 5 respondents × 10 site visits (2 providers per state) = 50 respondents. 14 10 respondents × 10 site visits (10 Consumers per provider (2 providers per state) = 100 respondents.

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed collection should be sent by DATE to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Services, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18136 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs And Border Protection Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Country of Origin of Tablet Computers for Health Mobile and Hub Platforms AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final determination.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of tablet computers known as Vivify Health Mobile and Hub Platforms. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded in the final determination that for purposes of U.S. Government procurement in the installation of proprietary software on tablet computer does not substantially transform the imported tablet computers.

    DATES:

    The final determination was issued on August 22, 2017. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within September 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Dinerstein, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade (202-325-0132).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that on August 22, 2017, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of tablet computers which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H284523, was issued at the request of Vivify Health Inc. under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP was asked to consider whether the loading of the specialized software onto a tablet computer that

    Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the Federal Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the Federal Register.

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade. HQ H284523 August 22, 2017 OT:RR:CTF:VS: H2854523 RSD CATEGORY: Origin Stuart P. Seidel, Esq. Baker & McKenzie LLP 815 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006-4078 RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III, Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. § 2511); Subpart B, Part 177, CBP Regulations; Tablet Computers, Health Mobile and Hub Platforms Dear Mr. Seidel:

    This is in response to your letter of March 20, 2017, on behalf of Vivify Health, Inc. (Vivify), requesting a final determination concerning the country origin of a product that you refer to as a “home health mobile platform and hub”, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR 177.21, et seq.). Under the pertinent regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. government. You state in your letter that this request is being made pursuant to a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to the prime contractor, Iron Bow Technologies, LLC (Iron Bow), requiring the filing of a request for a substantial transformation ruling from U.S. CBP.

    As a domestic manufacturer, Vivify is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.

    FACTS:

    The specific product at issue, referred to as the Vivify Mobile Device Platform and Hub Platform, begins as a tablet computer. The tablet computers are produced in Vietnam by one of the leading tablet manufacturers. The tablets are intended for purchase by the Veterans Health Administration for use by patients at home who will collect their health data that is measured by other peripheral devices such as blood pressure monitors, blood glucose monitors etc. These other devices are not imported with the tablet.

    Vivify's supplier purchases the tablets in the United States from an authorized reseller. In the United States, one of Vivify's Hub production partners partially disassembles the case and adds a Bluetooth speaker microphone array that was assembled in Hong Kong, an “on-the-go” USB hub manufactured in China, and the housing, custom designed in the United States and Israel and manufactured in California, USA and Israel. All the above Hub Platform sub-components are shipped to facilities in Texas and in California for a final test fit, assembly, configuration and, then shipped for Quality Assurance testing in Tempe Arizona.

    In order to collect the health data from each patient/user, Vivify installs specialized software (Vivify Health Pathways) onto the tablet computers. According to the information provided, the software was developed entirely in the United States, at Vivify's corporate headquarters in Plano, Texas at a cost of several million dollars using a team of more than 30 persons. The software enables patients to provide vital sign data and their responses to clinical questions. This application is installed on the tablet to meet the VA's requirements for medical devices, including patient confidentiality and interoperability with VA systems and protocols. In addition, this software disables the generic applications that would be normally used on the tablets. After the patient data is collected, it is next forwarded to VA clinicians over the VA intranet.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the imported tablets are substantially transformed by the installation of Vivify's proprietary software, so as to make them a product of the United States.

    LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):

    An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.

    See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).

    In rendering final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations. See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes that the Federal Acquisition Regulations restrict the U.S. Government's purchase of products to U.S.-made or designated country end products for acquisitions subject to the Trade Agreements Act. See 48 CFR 25.403(c)(1). The Federal Acquisition Regulations define “U.S.-made end product” as “an article that is mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States or that is substantially transformed in the United States into a new and different article of commerce with name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed.” See 48 CFR 25.003.

    “The term `character' is defined as `one of the essentials of structure, form, materials, or function that together make up and usually distinguish the individual.'” Uniden America Corporation v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 2d. 1091, 1096 (citations omitted) (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000), citing National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 308, 311 (1992). In Uniden, concerning whether the assembly of cordless telephones and the installation of their detachable A/C (alternating current) adapters constituted instances of substantial transformation, the Court of International Trade applied the “essence test” and found that “[t]he essence of the telephone is housed in the base and the handset.”

    In Data General v. United States, 4 Ct. Int'l Trade 182 (1982), the court determined that for purposes of determining eligibility under item 807.00, Tariff Schedules of the United States (predecessor to subheading 9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), the programming of a foreign PROM (Programmable Read-Only Memory chip) in the United States substantially transformed the PROM into a U.S. article. In programming the imported PROMs, the U.S. engineers systematically caused various distinct electronic interconnections to be formed within each integrated circuit. The programming bestowed upon each circuit its electronic function, that is, its “memory” which could be retrieved. A distinct physical change was effected in the PROM by the opening or closing of the fuses, depending on the method of programming. This physical alteration, not visible to the naked eye, could be discerned by electronic testing of the PROM. The court noted that the programs were designed by a U.S. project engineer with many years of experience in “designing and building hardware.” In addition, the court noted that while replicating the program pattern from a “master” PROM may be a quick one-step process, the development of the pattern and the production of the “master” PROM required much time and expertise. The court noted that it was undisputed that programming altered the character of a PROM. The essence of the article, its interconnections or stored memory, was established by programming. The court concluded that altering the non-functioning circuitry comprising a PROM through technological expertise in order to produce a functioning read only memory device, possessing a desired distinctive circuit pattern, was no less a “substantial transformation” than the manual interconnection of transistors, resistors and diodes upon a circuit board creating a similar pattern.

    In Texas Instruments v. United States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (CCPA 1982), the court observed that the substantial transformation issue is a “mixed question of technology and customs law.” Accordingly, the programming of a device that confers its identity as well as defines its use generally constitutes a substantial transformation. See also Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 558868, dated February 23, 1995 (programming of SecureID Card substantially transforms the card because it gives the card its character and use as part of a security system, and the programming is a permanent change that cannot be undone); HQ 735027, dated September 7, 1993 (programming blank media (EEPROM) with instructions that allow it to perform certain functions that prevent piracy of software constitutes a substantial transformation); and, HQ 733085, dated July 13, 1990; but see HQ 732870, dated March 19, 1990 (formatting a blank diskette does not constitute a substantial transformation because it does not add value, does not involve complex or highly technical operations, and does not create a new or different product); and, HQ 734518, dated June 28, 1993 (motherboards are not substantially transformed by the implanting of the central processing unit on the board because, whereas in Data General use was being assigned to the PROM, the use of the motherboard has already been determined when the importer imported it).

    HQ H258960, dated May 19, 2016, reviewed the country of origin of hardware components of certain transceivers in two scenarios that are instructive to the case at issue here. The hardware components of the transceivers were wholly manufactured in a foreign country and imported into the United States. In the first scenario, the transceivers were “blanks” and were completely non-functional and specialized proprietary software was developed and downloaded in the United States, making the transceivers functional and compatible with the OEM technology. In the second scenario, the transceivers were preprogrammed with a generic program that was replaced with the specialized proprietary software. It was argued that in both scenarios, the imported hardware was substantially transformed by the development, configuration, and downloading operations of the United States origin software. As in this case, the expenses for the work performed in the United States were noted to far outweigh the work performed abroad. In the first scenario, we found that the non-functional transceivers were substantially transformed as a result of downloading performed in the United States, with proprietary software developed in the United States. However, in the second scenario, it was determined that since the transceivers had generic network functionality, programming them merely to customize their network compatibility would not actually change the identity of the imported transceivers. See also HQ H241177 supra. Accordingly, it was determined that the country where the last substantial transformation occurred was China or another Asian country where the hardware components were manufactured.

    In this case, you contend that the software downloading operations performed in the United States transform the generic tablet computers into medical devices. You further explain that the cost of writing the software programming far outweighs the cost of the imported generic tablets. You emphasize that the U.S. operations disable the Android applications and install health monitoring software that cannot be undone by third parties during the normal course of operations. Therefore, you contend that this operation changes the classification of the tablet from Heading 8471 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) to a medical device of Heading 9018, HTSUS.

    In essence, what is being done by the installation of the software in the United States, is to limit the original capacity of the imported tablets for the purpose of facilitating the reception, collection and transmission of a patient's medical data to VA clinicians for their review. The original tablet has the ability to perform these functions, but it was determined that for ease of use and for other reasons it is best to disable these functions and to consolidate them in one function via the specialized software. It is stated that the general functionality of the tablet is removed and replaced so that it is easier for patients to use the device and access the system. It is also stated that the security of the patient's medical data will be better protected.

    It is clear that loading the specialized software onto the tablet computer that remains fully functional as a computer would be insufficient to constitute a new and different article of commerce, since all of the functionality of the original computer would be retained. In this case, however, in addition to the addition of the software, we are being asked to consider the effect of disabling the general applications that have been programmed onto the tablet. In our judgment, this added factor does not cause or require a different result. The functions of the original tablet produced in Vietnam that are necessary to receive and transmit data are in essence still present on the modified tablet, as aided by the software. While the tablet is no longer a freely programmable machine, we find the imposition of this limitation is insufficient to constitute a substantial transformation of the imported tablets.

    Furthermore, we note that the converted tablets loaded with the Vivify Pathway Software do not actually measure any health related functions, such as blood pressure, or oxygen saturation levels, nor do they provide any medical treatment to patients. Instead, the converted tablets function to receive medical data that is obtained from other peripheral devices, such as a blood pressure cuff or an oxygen sensor, and to transmit that medical data to a clinician for review. Therefore, it appears that after the proprietary software is downloaded onto the tablets, they function basically as a type of communications device.

    It is also claimed that the FDA considers the Mobile Device Platform and the Hub Platform to be medical devices, and thus counsel contends that CBP should also consider the tablets loaded with the Vivify software to be medical devices rather than tablets. We note, however, that FDA's determinations on whether any items are considered medical devices are based upon different criteria from what CBP must apply in determining the country of origin of a product using the substantial transformation test. In HQ H019436, dated March 17, 2008, CBP considered the tariff classification of a SONA Sleep Apnea Avoidance Pillow (pillow), imported from China. The ruling noted that while the subject merchandise was considered a Class II therapeutic cervical pillow for snoring and mild sleep apnea by the FDA, this determination, did not control the tariff classification. Similarly in this case, the FDA's determination that the imported tablets are medical devices is of limited relevance to CBP's determination as to the country of origin of the devices.

    In reviewing the processing performed in the United States on the imported tablets under consideration, we note that it is analogous to the situation of the transceivers described by the second scenario of HQ H258960. The imported tablets are preprogrammed with a generic program, which is the standard android operating system, prior to their importation. When they are first imported, the tablets can perform all of the standard functions of an android tablet, and could in their imported condition be used in conjunction with the proprietary software, but are customized for use. Accordingly, like the transceivers described in the second scenario of HQ H258960, we find that the name, character, and use of the imported tablet computers remain the same. Therefore, we further find that the imported tablets are not substantially transformed in the United States by the downloading of the proprietary software, which allows them to function with the VA Healthcare network. After the Vivify Health Pathways software is downloaded, the country of origin of the imported tablets remains the country where they were originally manufactured, which in this case is Vietnam.

    HOLDING:

    Based on the facts of this case, the imported tablets used with Home Health Hub platform are not substantially transformed by the installation of the proprietary Vivify Health Pathways software. Therefore, the country of origin of the tablets will remain the country where they were originally manufactured.

    Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

    Sincerely, Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18202 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Notice of Issuance of Final Determinations Concerning Certain Pharmaceutical Products AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final determinations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued six final determinations concerning the country of origin of certain pharmaceutical products produced by Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the country of origin of the meloxicam tablets is Italy for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, that the country of origin of the bimatoprost ophthalmic solution is Taiwan for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, that the country of origin of the niacin ER tablets is Belgium or Switzerland for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, that the country of origin of the calcium acetate capsules is the Netherlands for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, that the country of origin of the quinine sulfate capsules is Germany for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, and that the country of origin of the pravastatin sodium tablets is Taiwan for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

    DATES:

    These final determinations were issued on August 22, 2017. Copies of the final determinations are attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of these final determinations within September 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ross M. Cunningham, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0034.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that on August 22, 2017 pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued six final determinations concerning the country of origin of certain pharmaceutical products, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. These final determinations (HQ H284690, HQ H284961, HQ H284692, HQ H284694, HQ H284695, and HQ H284697), were issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determinations, CBP concluded that the processing in India does not result in a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin for purposes of U.S. Government procurement of the pharmaceutical products is the country in which the active pharmaceutical ingredient was produced.

    Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the Federal Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the Federal Register.

    Dated: August 22, 2017. Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade. ATTACHMENT A HQ H284690 August 22, 20917 OT:RR:CTF:VS H284690 RMC CATEGORY: Origin Kevin J. Maynard Wiley Rein LLP 1776 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Meloxicam Tablets; Substantial Transformation Dear Mr. Maynard:

    This is in response to your letter, dated March 20, 2017, requesting a final determination on behalf of Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin”) pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR Part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. This final determination concerns the country of origin of meloxicam tablets. As a U.S. importer, Lupin is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.

    You have asked that certain information submitted in connection with this ruling request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to this ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this ruling.

    FACTS:

    Lupin is a subsidiary of Lupin Limited, one of the five largest pharmaceutical companies in India. At issue in this case are meloxicam tablets, in doses of 7.5 milligrams and 15 milligrams, which you describe as “nonsteroidal anti-inflammator[ies] used for the relief of the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis.”

    The manufacturing process for Lupin's meloxicam tablets begins in Italy, where the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) meloxicam (chemical formula C14H13N3O4S2) is produced. You state that the Italian meloxicam is the only active ingredient in the finished pharmaceutical product. However, the finished product contains a number of other inactive ingredients, which you describe as excipients. These ingredients are combined with the Italian API in India during the manufacturing process. The ingredients include the following chemicals, which you note are products of TAA-eligible countries:

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    The manufacturing process in India involves four steps. First, the API and inactive ingredients are sifted and blended. Second, the materials are granulated, and the wet granulates are then sieved and dried. Third, the product is compressed into tablets. Finally, in the fourth step, the finished tablets are packaged into approved packaging.

    You state that the processes performed to produce the finished meloxicam tablets do not result in any change to the chemical characteristics of the Italian API or to any other ingredients. You also state that the medicinal use, molecular formula, and solubility of the API are unchanged by the manufacturing operations in India. In short, you characterize the Indian operations as mere processing of bulk API into 7.5 milligram and 15 milligram dosage form.

    ISSUE:

    What is the country of origin of the meloxicam tablets for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?

    LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):

    An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.

    See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).

    A substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, and use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940); and National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States, 628 F.Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986).

    In determining whether a substantial transformation occurs in the manufacture of chemical products such as pharmaceuticals, CBP has consistently examined the complexity of the processing and whether the final article retains the essential identity and character of the raw material. To that end, CBP has generally held that the processing of pharmaceutical products from bulk form into measured doses does not result in a substantial transformation of the product. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) 561975, dated April 3, 2002; HQ 561544, dated May 1, 2000; HQ 735146, dated November 15, 1993; HQ H267177, dated November 5, 2016; HQ H233356, dated December 26, 2012; and, HQ 561975, dated April 3, 2002.

    For example, in HQ H267177, CBP held that Indian- and Chinese-origin Acyclovir was not substantially transformed in the United States when it was combined with excipients and processed into tablets. In that case, the Indian or Chinese Acyclovir was the only active pharmaceutical ingredient in the final product. Accordingly, we found that the processing performed in the United States did not result in a change in the medicinal use of the finished product. Furthermore, the Acyclovir maintained its chemical and physical characteristics and did not undergo a change in name, character, or use. Consistent with our previous rulings, we held that processing the Acyclovir into dosage form and packaging it for sale in the United States did not constitute a substantial transformation. Accordingly, the country of origin of the final product for purposes of U.S. Government procurement was either China or India, where the active ingredient was produced.

    Similarly, in HQ H233356, CBP held that the processing and packaging of imported mefenamic acid into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Based on previous CBP rulings, we found that the specific U.S. processing—which involved blending the active ingredients with inactive ingredients in a tumbler and then encapsulating and packaging the product—did not substantially transform the mefenamic acid because its chemical character remained the same. Accordingly, we held that the country of origin of the final product was India, where the mefanamic acid was produced.

    In HQ 561975, we also held that the processing of imported bulk Japanese-origin anesthetic drugs into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Although the bulk form of the drug underwent testing operations, filtering, and packaging in the United States, these processes did not change the chemical or physical properties of the drug. Furthermore, there was no change in the product's name, which was referred to as sevoflurane in both its bulk and processed form. Additionally, because the imported bulk drug had a predetermined medicinal use as an anesthetic drug, the processing in the United States did not result in a change in the product's use. The country of origin of the finished product was therefore Japan.

    Here, as in the cases cited above, the processing of bulk imported pharmaceuticals into dosage form will not result in a substantial transformation. In this case, the processing begins with Italian-origin bulk meloxicam and, after this product is combined with inactive ingredients from TAA-eligible countries in India, results in meloxicam tablets in individual doses of either 7.5 milligrams or 15 milligrams. Because the product is referred to as “meloxicam” both before and after the Indian processing, no change in name occurs in India. Furthermore, no change in character occurs in India because the meloxicam maintains the same chemical and physical properties both before and after the Indian processing. Finally, because the imported, bulk-form meloxicam had a predetermined medicinal use as a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, no change in use occurs after processing in India. Under these circumstances, and consistent with previous CBP rulings, we find that the country of origin of the final product is Italy, where the active ingredient was produced.

    HOLDING:

    The country of origin of the meloxicam tablets for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Italy.

    Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

    Sincerely, Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director, Regulations & Rulings, Office of Trade. ATTACHMENT B HQ H284691 August 22, 2017 OT:RR:CTF:VS H284691 RMC CATEGORY: Origin Kevin J. Maynard Wiley Rein LLP 1776 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Bimatoprost Ophthalmic Solution; Substantial Transformation Dear Mr. Maynard:

    This is in response to your letter, dated March 20, 2017, requesting a final determination on behalf of Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin”) pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR Part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. This final determination concerns the country of origin of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution. As a U.S. importer, Lupin is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.

    You have asked that certain information submitted in connection with this ruling request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to this ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this ruling.

    FACTS:

    Lupin is a subsidiary of Lupin Limited, one of the five largest pharmaceutical companies in India. At issue in this case are bimatoprost ophthalmic solution (0.03%), which you describe as “a `prostaglandin analog' used to reduce elevated intraocular pressure.”

    The manufacturing process for Lupin's bimatoprost ophthalmic solution begins in Taiwan, where the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) bimatoprost (chemical formula C25H37NO4) is produced. You state that the Taiwanese bimatoprost is the only active ingredient in the finished pharmaceutical product. However, the finished product contains a number of other inactive ingredients, which you describe as excipients. These ingredients are combined with the Taiwanese API in India during the manufacturing process. The ingredients include the following:

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    The manufacturing processes performed in India include the following four steps: First, the weights of the API and inactive ingredients are verified. Second, the active and inactive ingredients are dissolved in water. Third, the inactive and active ingredient solutions are combined and the pH level is adjusted if necessary. Finally, in the fourth step, the solution is filtered and placed into approved packaging.

    You state that the processes performed to produce the finished bimatoprost ophthalmic solution do not result in any change to the chemical characteristics of the Taiwanese API or to any other ingredients. You also state that the medicinal use, molecular formula, and solubility of the API are unchanged by the manufacturing operations in India. In short, you characterize the Indian operations as mere processing of bulk API into 0.03%-strength dosage form.

    ISSUE:

    What is the country of origin of the bimatoprost ophthalmic solution for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?

    LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):

    An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.

    See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).

    A substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, and use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940); and National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States, 628 F.Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986).

    In determining whether a substantial transformation occurs in the manufacture of chemical products such as pharmaceuticals, CBP has consistently examined the complexity of the processing and whether the final article retains the essential identity and character of the raw material. To that end, CBP has generally held that the processing of pharmaceutical products from bulk form into measured doses does not result in a substantial transformation of the product. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) 561975, dated April 3, 2002; HQ 561544, dated May 1, 2000; HQ 735146, dated November 15, 1993; HQ H267177, dated November 5, 2016; HQ H233356, dated December 26, 2012; and, HQ 561975, dated April 3, 2002.

    For example, in HQ H267177, CBP held that Indian- and Chinese-origin Acyclovir was not substantially transformed in the United States when it was combined with excipients and processed into tablets. In that case, the Indian or Chinese Acyclovir was the only active pharmaceutical ingredient in the final product. Accordingly, we found that the processing performed in the United States did not result in a change in the medicinal use of the finished product. Furthermore, the Acyclovir maintained its chemical and physical characteristics and did not undergo a change in name, character, or use. Consistent with our previous rulings, we held that processing the Acyclovir into dosage form and packaging it for sale in the United States did not constitute a substantial transformation. Accordingly, the country of origin of the final product for purposes of U.S. Government procurement was either China or India, where the active ingredient was produced.

    Similarly, in HQ H233356, CBP held that the processing and packaging of imported mefenamic acid into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Based on previous CBP rulings, we found that the specific U.S. processing—which involved blending the active ingredients with inactive ingredients in a tumbler and then encapsulating and packaging the product—did not substantially transform the mefenamic acid because its chemical character remained the same. Accordingly, we held that the country of origin of the final product was India, where the mefanamic acid was produced.

    In HQ 561975, we also held that the processing of imported bulk Japanese-origin anesthetic drugs into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Although the bulk form of the drug underwent testing operations, filtering, and packaging in the United States, these processes did not change the chemical or physical properties of the drug. Furthermore, there was no change in the product's name, which was referred to as sevoflurane in both its bulk and processed form. Additionally, because the imported bulk drug had a predetermined medicinal use as an anesthetic drug, the processing in the United States did not result in a change in the product's use. The country of origin of the finished product was therefore Japan.

    Here, as in the cases cited above, the processing of bulk imported pharmaceuticals into dosage form will not result in a substantial transformation. In this case, the processing begins with Taiwanese-origin bulk bimatoprost and, after this product is combined with inactive ingredients in India, results in bimatoprost ophthalmic solution in 0.03%-strength form. Because the product is referred to as “bimatoprost” both before and after the Indian processing, no change in name occurs in India. Furthermore, no change in character occurs in India because the bimatoprost maintains the same chemical and physical properties both before and after the Indian processing. Finally, because the imported, bulk-form bimatoprost had a predetermined medicinal use as a “prostaglandin analog” used to reduce elevated intraocular pressure, no change in use occurs after processing in India. Under these circumstances, and consistent with previous CBP rulings, we find that the country of origin of the final product is Taiwan, where the active ingredient was produced.

    HOLDING:

    The country of origin of the bimatoprost ophthalmic solution for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Taiwan.

    Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

    Sincerely, Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director, Regulations & Rulings, Office of Trade. ATTACHMENT C HQ H284692 August 22, 2017 OT:RR:CTF:VS H284692 RMC CATEGORY: Origin Kevin J. Maynard Wiley Rein LLP 1776 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Niacin ER Tablets; Substantial Transformation Dear Mr. Maynard:

    This is in response to your letter, dated March 20, 2017, requesting a final determination on behalf of Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin”) pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. This final determination concerns the country of origin of niacin ER tablets. As a U.S. importer, Lupin is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.

    You have asked that certain information submitted in connection with this ruling request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to this ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this ruling.

    FACTS:

    Lupin is a subsidiary of Lupin Limited, one of the five largest pharmaceutical companies in India. At issue in this case are niacin ER tablets, in doses of 500 milligrams, 750 milligrams, and 1000 milligrams, which you describe as “an antihyperlipidemic agent . . . used in patients with primary hyperlipidemia and mixed dyslipidemia.”

    The manufacturing process for Lupin's niacin ER tablets begins in either Belgium or Switzerland, where the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) nicotinic acid (chemical formula C6H5NO2) is produced. You state that the Belgian or Swiss nicotinic acid is the only active ingredient in the finished pharmaceutical product. However, the finished product contains a number of other inactive ingredients, which you describe as excipients. These ingredients are combined with the Belgian or Swiss API in India during the manufacturing process. The ingredients include the following:

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    The manufacturing processes performed in India include the following four steps: First, the API and inactive ingredients are sifted and blended. Second, the materials are granulated, and then sieved. Third, the blend is compressed into tablets and the tablets are coated. Finally, in the fourth step, the finished tablets are packaged into approved packaging.

    You state that the processes performed to produce the finished niacin ER tablets do not result in any change to the chemical characteristics of the Belgian or Swiss API or to any other ingredients. You also state that the medicinal use, molecular formula, and solubility of the API are unchanged by the manufacturing operations in India. In short, you characterize the Indian operations as mere processing of bulk API into 500-milligram, 750-milligram, and 1000-milligram dosage form.

    ISSUE:

    What is the country of origin of the niacin ER tablets for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?

    LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):

    An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.

    See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).

    A substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, and use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940); and National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States, 628 F.Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986).

    In determining whether a substantial transformation occurs in the manufacture of chemical products such as pharmaceuticals, CBP has consistently examined the complexity of the processing and whether the final article retains the essential identity and character of the raw material. To that end, CBP has generally held that the processing of pharmaceutical products from bulk form into measured doses does not result in a substantial transformation of the product. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) 561975, dated April 3, 2002; HQ 561544, dated May 1, 2000; HQ 735146, dated November 15, 1993; HQ H267177, dated November 5, 2016; HQ H233356, dated December 26, 2012; and, HQ 561975, dated April 3, 2002.

    For example, in HQ H267177, CBP held that Indian- and Chinese-origin Acyclovir was not substantially transformed in the United States when it was combined with excipients and processed into tablets. In that case, the Indian or Chinese Acyclovir was the only active pharmaceutical ingredient in the final product. Accordingly, we found that the processing performed in the United States did not result in a change in the medicinal use of the finished product. Furthermore, the Acyclovir maintained its chemical and physical characteristics and did not undergo a change in name, character, or use. Consistent with our previous rulings, we held that processing the Acyclovir into dosage form and packaging it for sale in the United States did not constitute a substantial transformation. Accordingly, the country of origin of the final product for purposes of U.S. Government procurement was either China or India, where the active ingredient was produced.

    Similarly, in HQ H233356, CBP held that the processing and packaging of imported mefenamic acid into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Based on previous CBP rulings, we found that the specific U.S. processing—which involved blending the active ingredients with inactive ingredients in a tumbler and then encapsulating and packaging the product—did not substantially transform the mefenamic acid because its chemical character remained the same. Accordingly, we held that the country of origin of the final product was India, where the mefanamic acid was produced.

    In HQ 561975, we also held that the processing of imported bulk Japanese-origin anesthetic drugs into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Although the bulk form of the drug underwent testing operations, filtering, and packaging in the United States, these processes did not change the chemical or physical properties of the drug. Furthermore, there was no change in the product's name, which was referred to as sevoflurane in both its bulk and processed form. Additionally, because the imported bulk drug had a predetermined medicinal use as an anesthetic drug, the processing in the United States did not result in a change in the product's use. The country of origin of the finished product was therefore Japan.

    Here, as in the cases cited above, the processing of bulk imported pharmaceuticals into dosage form will not result in a substantial transformation. In this case, the processing begins with Belgian- or Swiss-origin bulk nicotinic acid and, after this product is combined with inactive ingredients in India, results in niacin ER tablets in individual doses of 500 milligrams, 750 milligrams, or 1000 milligrams. Although Lupin refers to the final product as niacin, it is also commonly known as nicotinic acid. See WebMD, Niacin ER, http://webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-3745-9126/niacin-oral/niacin-extended-release-oral/details (last visited June 22, 2017). Because the product is referred to as nicotinic acid both before and after the Indian processing, no change in name occurs in India. Furthermore, no change in character occurs in India because the nicotinic acid maintains the same chemical and physical properties both before and after the Indian processing. Finally, because the imported, bulk-form nicotinic acid had a predetermined medicinal use as an antihyperlipidemic agent, no change in use occurs after processing in India. Under these circumstances, and consistent with previous CBP rulings, we find that the country of origin of the final product is Belgium or Switzerland, where the active ingredient was produced.

    HOLDING:

    The country of origin of the niacin ER tablets for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Belgium or Switzerland.

    ATTACHMENT D HQ H284694 August 22, 2017 OT:RR:CTF:VS H284694 RMC CATEGORY: Origin Kevin J. Maynard Wiley Rein LLP 1776 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Calcium Acetate Capsules; Substantial Transformation Dear Mr. Maynard:

    This is in response to your letter, dated March 20, 2017, requesting a final determination on behalf of Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin”) pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR Part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. This final determination concerns the country of origin of calcium acetate capsules. As a U.S. importer, Lupin is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.

    You have asked that certain information submitted in connection with this ruling request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to this ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this ruling.

    FACTS:

    Lupin is a subsidiary of Lupin Limited, one of the five largest pharmaceutical companies in India. At issue in this case are calcium acetate capsules, in doses of 667 milligrams, which you describe as a “ `antihyperphosphatemic' or `phosphate binder' that is used to reduce the levels of phosphate in the blood.”

    The manufacturing process for Lupin's calcium acetate capsules begins in the Netherlands, where the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) calcium acetate (chemical formula C4H6CaO4) is produced. You state that the Dutch calcium acetate is the only active ingredient in the finished pharmaceutical product. However, the finished product contains a number of other inactive ingredients. These ingredients are combined with the Dutch API in India during the manufacturing process. The ingredients include the following:

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    The manufacturing processes performed in India include the following three steps: First, the API and inactive ingredients are sifted and blended. Second, the blend is filled in gelatin capsules. Finally, in the third step, the finished capsules are packaged into approved packaging.

    You state that the processes performed to produce the finished calcium acetate capsules do not result in any change to the chemical characteristics of the Dutch API or to any other ingredients. You also state that the medicinal use, molecular formula, and solubility of the API are unchanged by the manufacturing operations in India. In short, you characterize the Indian operations as mere processing of bulk API into 667 milligram dosage form.

    ISSUE:

    What is the country of origin of the calcium acetate capsules for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?

    LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):

    An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.

    See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).

    A substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, and use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940); and National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States, 628 F.Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986).

    In determining whether a substantial transformation occurs in the manufacture of chemical products such as pharmaceuticals, CBP has consistently examined the complexity of the processing and whether the final article retains the essential identity and character of the raw material. To that end, CBP has generally held that the processing of pharmaceutical products from bulk form into measured doses does not result in a substantial transformation of the product. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) 561975, dated April 3, 2002; HQ 561544, dated May 1, 2000; HQ 735146, dated November 15, 1993; HQ H267177, dated November 5, 2016; HQ H233356, dated December 26, 2012; and, HQ 561975, dated April 3, 2002.

    For example, in HQ H267177, CBP held that Indian- and Chinese-origin Acyclovir was not substantially transformed in the United States when it was combined with excipients and processed into tablets. In that case, the Indian or Chinese Acyclovir was the only active pharmaceutical ingredient in the final product. Accordingly, we found that the processing performed in the United States did not result in a change in the medicinal use of the finished product. Furthermore, the Acyclovir maintained its chemical and physical characteristics and did not undergo a change in name, character, or use. Consistent with our previous rulings, we held that processing the Acyclovir into dosage form and packaging it for sale in the United States did not constitute a substantial transformation. Accordingly, the country of origin of the final product for purposes of U.S. Government procurement was either China or India, where the active ingredient was produced.

    Similarly, in HQ H233356, CBP held that the processing and packaging of imported mefenamic acid into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Based on previous CBP rulings, we found that the specific U.S. processing—which involved blending the active ingredients with inactive ingredients in a tumbler and then encapsulating and packaging the product—did not substantially transform the mefenamic acid because its chemical character remained the same. Accordingly, we held that the country of origin of the final product was India, where the mefanamic acid was produced.

    In HQ 561975, we also held that the processing of imported bulk Japanese-origin anesthetic drugs into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Although the bulk form of the drug underwent testing operations, filtering, and packaging in the United States, these processes did not change the chemical or physical properties of the drug. Furthermore, there was no change in the product's name, which was referred to as sevoflurane in both its bulk and processed form. Additionally, because the imported bulk drug had a predetermined medicinal use as an anesthetic drug, the processing in the United States did not result in a change in the product's use. The country of origin of the finished product was therefore Japan.

    Here, as in the cases cited above, the processing of bulk imported pharmaceuticals into dosage form will not result in a substantial transformation. In this case, the processing begins with Dutch-origin bulk calcium acetate and, after this product is combined with inactive ingredients in India, results in calcium acetate capsules in individual doses of 667 milligrams. Because the product is referred to as “calcium acetate” both before and after the Indian processing, no change in name occurs in India. Furthermore, no change in character occurs in India because the calcium acetate maintains the same chemical and physical properties both before and after the Indian processing. Finally, because the imported, bulk-form calcium acetate had a predetermined medicinal use as an antihyperphosphatemic or phosphate binder, no change in use occurs after processing in India. Under these circumstances, and consistent with previous CBP rulings, we find that the country of origin of the final product is the Netherlands, where the active ingredient was produced.

    HOLDING:

    The country of origin of the calcium acetate capsules for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is the Netherlands.

    Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

    Sincerely, Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director, Regulations & Rulings, Office of Trade.

    Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

    Sincerely, Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director, Regulations & Rulings, Office of Trade. ATTACHMENT E HQ H284695 August 22, 2017 OT:RR:CTF:VS H284695 RMC CATEGORY: Origin Kevin J. Maynard Wiley Rein LLP 1776 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Quinine Sulfate Capsules; Substantial Transformation Dear Mr. Maynard:

    This is in response to your letter, dated March 20, 2017, requesting a final determination on behalf of Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin”) pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR Part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. This final determination concerns the country of origin of quinine sulfate capsules. As a U.S. importer, Lupin is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.

    You have asked that certain information submitted in connection with this ruling request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to this ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this ruling.

    FACTS:

    Lupin is a subsidiary of Lupin Limited, one of the five largest pharmaceutical companies in India. At issue in this case are quinine sulfate capsules, in doses of 324 milligrams, which you describe as “ `cinchona alkaloid[s]' that [are] used for the treatment of malaria.”

    The manufacturing process for Lupin's quinine sulfate capsules begins in Germany, where the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) quinine sulfate (chemical formula ((C20H24N2O2)2H2SO42H2O) is produced. You state that the German quinine sulfate is the only active ingredient in the finished pharmaceutical product. However, the finished product contains a number of other inactive ingredients, which you describe as excipients. These ingredients are combined with the German API in India during the manufacturing process. The ingredients include the following:

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    • [          ]

    The manufacturing processes performed in India include the following four steps: First, the API and inactive ingredients are sifted and blended. Second, the materials are granulated, and then sieved. Third, the blend is filled in gelatin capsules. Finally, in the fourth step, the finished capsules are packaged into approved packaging.

    You state that the processes performed to produce the finished quinine sulfate capsules do not result in any change to the chemical characteristics of the German API or to any other ingredients. You also state that the medicinal use, molecular formula, and solubility of the API are unchanged by the manufacturing operations in India. In short, you characterize the Indian operations as mere processing of bulk API into 324 milligram dosage form.

    ISSUE:

    What is the country of origin of the quinine sulfate capsules for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?

    LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):

    An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.

    See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).

    A substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, and use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940); and National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States, 628 F.Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986).

    In determining whether a substantial transformation occurs in the manufacture of chemical products such as pharmaceuticals, CBP has consistently examined the complexity of the processing and whether the final article retains the essential identity and character of the raw material. To that end, CBP has generally held that the processing of pharmaceutical products from bulk form into measured doses does not result in a substantial transformation of the product. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) 561975, dated April 3, 2002; HQ 561544, dated May 1, 2000; HQ 735146, dated November 15, 1993; HQ H267177, dated November 5, 2016; HQ H233356, dated December 26, 2012; and, HQ 561975, dated April 3, 2002.

    For example, in HQ H267177, CBP held that Indian- and Chinese-origin Acyclovir was not substantially transformed in the United States when it was combined with excipients and processed into tablets. In that case, the Indian or Chinese Acyclovir was the only active pharmaceutical ingredient in the final product. Accordingly, we found that the processing performed in the United States did not result in a change in the medicinal use of the finished product. Furthermore, the Acyclovir maintained its chemical and physical characteristics and did not undergo a change in name, character, or use. Consistent with our previous rulings, we held that processing the Acyclovir into dosage form and packaging it for sale in the United States did not constitute a substantial transformation. Accordingly, the country of origin of the final product for purposes of U.S. Government procurement was either China or India, where the active ingredient was produced.

    Similarly, in HQ H233356, CBP held that the processing and packaging of imported mefenamic acid into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Based on previous CBP rulings, we found that the specific U.S. processing—which involved blending the active ingredients with inactive ingredients in a tumbler and then encapsulating and packaging the product—did not substantially transform the mefenamic acid because its chemical character remained the same. Accordingly, we held that the country of origin of the final product was India, where the mefanamic acid was produced.

    In HQ 561975, we also held that the processing of imported bulk Japanese-origin anesthetic drugs into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Although the bulk form of the drug underwent testing operations, filtering, and packaging in the United States, these processes did not change the chemical or physical properties of the drug. Furthermore, there was no change in the product's name, which was referred to as sevoflurane in both its bulk and processed form. Additionally, because the imported bulk drug had a predetermined medicinal use as an anesthetic drug, the processing in the United States did not result in a change in the product's use. The country of origin of the finished product was therefore Japan.

    Here, as in the cases cited above, the processing of bulk imported pharmaceuticals into dosage form will not result in a substantial transformation. In this case, the processing begins with German-origin bulk quinine sulfate and, after this product is combined with inactive ingredients in India, results in quinine sulfate capsules in 324 milligram doses. Because the product is referred to as “quinine sulfate” both before and after the Indian processing, no change in name occurs in India. Furthermore, no change in character occurs in India because the quinine sulfate maintains the same chemical and physical properties both before and after the Indian processing. Finally, because the imported, bulk-form quinine sulfate had a predetermined medicinal use as an antimalarial drug, no change in use occurs after processing in India. Under these circumstances, and consistent with previous CBP rulings, we find that the country of origin of the final product is Germany, where the active ingredient was produced.

    HOLDING:

    The country of origin of the quinine sulfate capsules for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Germany.

    Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

    Sincerely, Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director, Regulations & Rulings, Office of Trade. ATTACHMENT F HQ H284697 August 22, 2017 OT:RR:CTF:VS H284697 RMC CATEGORY: Origin Kevin J. Maynard Wiley Rein LLP 1776 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Pravastatin Sodium Tablets; Substantial Transformation

    Dear Mr. Maynard:

    This is in response to your letter, dated March 20, 2017, requesting a final determination on behalf of Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin”) pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR Part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. This final determination concerns the country of origin of pravastatin sodium tablets. As a U.S. importer, Lupin is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.

    You have asked that certain information submitted in connection with this ruling request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to this ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this ruling.

    FACTS:

    Lupin is a subsidiary of Lupin Limited, one of the five largest pharmaceutical companies in India. At issue in this case are pravastatin sodium tablets in doses of 10, 20, 40, and 80 milligrams, which you describe as a pharmaceutical product that is “an antilipimic agent that is used to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction.”

    The manufacturing process for Lupin's pravastatin sodium tablets begins in Taiwan, where the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) pravastatin sodium (chemical formula C23H35NaO7) is produced. You state that the Taiwanese pravastatin sodium is the only active ingredient in the finished pharmaceutical product. However, the finished product contains a number of other inactive ingredients, which you describe as excipients. These ingredients are combined with the Taiwanese API in India during the manufacturing process. The ingredients include the following:

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    • [           ]

    The manufacturing processes performed in India include the following three steps: First, the API and inactive ingredients are sifted and blended. Second, the blend is compressed into tablets and the tablets are coated. Finally, in the third step, the finished tablets are packaged into approved packaging.

    You state that the processes performed to produce the finished pravastatin sodium tablets do not result in any change to the chemical characteristics of the Taiwanese API or to any other ingredients. You also state that the medicinal use, molecular formula, and solubility of the API are unchanged by the manufacturing operations in India. In short, you characterize the Indian operations as mere processing of bulk API into 10-, 20-, 40-, and 80-milligram dosage form.

    ISSUE:

    What is the country of origin of the pravastatin sodium tablets for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?

    LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):

    An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.

    See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).

    A substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, and use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940); and National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States, 628 F.Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986).

    In determining whether a substantial transformation occurs in the manufacture of chemical products such as pharmaceuticals, CBP has consistently examined the complexity of the processing and whether the final article retains the essential identity and character of the raw material. To that end, CBP has generally held that the processing of pharmaceutical products from bulk form into measured doses does not result in a substantial transformation of the product. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) 561975, dated April 3, 2002; HQ 561544, dated May 1, 2000; HQ 735146, dated November 15, 1993; HQ H267177, dated November 5, 2016; HQ H233356, dated December 26, 2012; and, HQ 561975, dated April 3, 2002.

    For example, in HQ H267177, CBP held that Indian- and Chinese-origin Acyclovir was not substantially transformed in the United States when it was combined with excipients and processed into tablets. In that case, the Indian or Chinese Acyclovir was the only active pharmaceutical ingredient in the final product. Accordingly, we found that the processing performed in the United States did not result in a change in the medicinal use of the finished product. Furthermore, the Acyclovir maintained its chemical and physical characteristics and did not undergo a change in name, character, or use. Consistent with our previous rulings, we held that processing the Acyclovir into dosage form and packaging it for sale in the United States did not constitute a substantial transformation. Accordingly, the country of origin of the final product for purposes of U.S. Government procurement was either China or India, where the active ingredient was produced.

    Similarly, in HQ H233356, CBP held that the processing and packaging of imported mefenamic acid into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Based on previous CBP rulings, we found that the specific U.S. processing—which involved blending the active ingredients with inactive ingredients in a tumbler and then encapsulating and packaging the product—did not substantially transform the mefenamic acid because its chemical character remained the same. Accordingly, we held that the country of origin of the final product was India, where the mefanamic acid was produced.

    In HQ 561975, we also held that the processing of imported bulk Japanese-origin anesthetic drugs into dosage form in the United States did not constitute substantial transformation. Although the bulk form of the drug underwent testing operations, filtering, and packaging in the United States, these processes did not change the chemical or physical properties of the drug. Furthermore, there was no change in the product's name, which was referred to as sevoflurane in both its bulk and processed form. Additionally, because the imported bulk drug had a predetermined medicinal use as an anesthetic drug, the processing in the United States did not result in a change in the product's use. The country of origin of the finished product was therefore Japan.

    Here, as in the cases cited above, the processing of bulk imported pharmaceuticals into dosage form will not result in a substantial transformation. In this case, the processing begins with Taiwanese-origin bulk pravastatin sodium and, after this product is combined with inactive ingredients in India, results in pravastatin sodium tablets in individual doses of 10, 20, 40, or 80 milligrams. Because the product is referred to as “pravastatin sodium” both before and after the Indian processing, no change in name occurs in India. Furthermore, no change in character occurs in India because the pravastatin sodium maintains the same chemical and physical properties both before and after the Indian processing. Finally, because the imported, bulk-form pravastatin sodium had a predetermined medicinal use as an antilipimic agent that is used to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, no change in use occurs after processing in India. Under these circumstances, and consistent with previous CBP rulings, we find that the country of origin of the final product is Taiwan, where the active ingredient was produced.

    HOLDING:

    The country of origin of the pravastatin sodium tablets for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Taiwan.

    Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

    Sincerely, Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director, Regulations & Rulings, Office of Trade.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18205 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION Sunshine Act Meetings TIME AND DATE:

    September 6, 2017, 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

    PLACE:

    Via tele-conference hosted at Inter-American Foundation, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 1200, NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    STATUS:

    Meeting of the Board of Directors, Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Next steps for updating advisory council membership.

    The role of the Board in funding decisions.

    FOR DIAL-IN INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Vargas, Executive Assistant, (202) 524-8869.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Paul Zimmerman, General Counsel, (202) 683-7118.

    Paul Zimmerman, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18263 Filed 8-24-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2017-N084; FF08EVEN00-FXFR1337088SSO0] Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock Assessment Report for the Southern Sea Otter in California AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; response to comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), and its implementing regulations, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce that we have revised our stock assessment report (SAR) for the southern sea otter stock in the State of California, including incorporation of public comments. We now make our final revised SAR available to the public.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document Availability: You may obtain a copy of the SAR from our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/species/info/sso.html. Alternatively, you may contact the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone: 805-644-1766.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the methods, data, and results of the stock assessment, contact Lilian Carswell by telephone (805-677-3325) or by email ([email protected]). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We are announcing the availability of the final revised SAR for the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) stock in the State of California.

    Background

    Under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 18, we regulate the taking; import; and, under certain conditions, possession; transportation; purchasing; selling; and offering for sale, purchase, or export, of marine mammals. One of the goals of the MMPA is to ensure that stocks of marine mammals occurring in waters under U.S. jurisdiction do not experience a level of human-caused mortality and serious injury that is likely to cause the stock to be reduced below its optimum sustainable population (OSP) level. OSP is defined under the MMPA as “the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element” (16 U.S.C. 1362(9)).

    To help accomplish the goal of maintaining marine mammal stocks at their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA requires the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to prepare a SAR for each marine mammal stock that occurs in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Each SAR must include:

    1. A description of the stock and its geographic range;

    2. A minimum population estimate, current and maximum net productivity rate, and current population trend;

    3. An estimate of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury by source and, for a strategic stock, other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock;

    4. A description of commercial fishery interactions;

    5. A categorization of the status of the stock; and

    6. An estimate of the potential biological removal (PBR) level.

    The MMPA defines the PBR as “the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its [OSP]” (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)). The PBR is the product of the minimum population estimate of the stock (Nmin); one-half the maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small population size (Rmax); and a recovery factor (Fr) of between 0.1 and 1.0. This can be written as:

    PBR = (Nmin)(1/2 of the Rmax)(Fr)

    Section 117 of the MMPA requires the Service and NMFS to review the SARs (a) at least annually for stocks that are specified as strategic stocks, (b) at least annually for stocks for which significant new information is available, and (c) at least once every 3 years for all other stocks. If our review of the status of a stock indicates that it has changed or may be more accurately determined, then the SAR must be revised accordingly.

    A strategic stock is defined in the MMPA as a marine mammal stock “(A) for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the [PBR] level; (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [as amended] (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) [the “ESA”], within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the [ESA], or is designated as depleted under [the MMPA]” (16 U.S.C. 1362(19)).

    Stock Assessment Report History for the Southern Sea Otter in California

    The southern sea otter SAR was last revised in 2014. Because the southern sea otter qualifies as a strategic stock due to its listing as a threatened species under the ESA, the Service reviewed the stock assessment in 2015. The review concluded that the status had not changed, nor could it be more accurately determined. However, upon review in 2016, the Service determined that revision was warranted.

    Before releasing our draft SAR for public review and comment, we submitted it for technical review internally and for scientific review by the Pacific Regional Scientific Review Group, which was established under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386(d)). In a December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87951), Federal Register notice, we made our draft SAR available for the MMPA-required 90-day public review and comment period. Following the close of the comment period, we revised the SAR based on public comments we received (see Response to Public Comments) and prepared the final revised SAR. Between publication of the draft and final revised SARs, we have not revised the status of the stock itself (the southern sea otter continues to retain its status as a strategic stock). However, we have updated the SAR to include the most recent information available.

    Summary of Final Revised Stock Assessment Report for the Southern Sea Otter in California

    The following table summarizes some of the information contained in the final revised SAR for southern sea otters in California, which includes the stock's Nmin, Rmax, Fr, PBR, annual estimated human-caused mortality and serious injury, and status:

    Summary—Final Revised Stock Assessment Report for the Southern Sea Otter in California Southern sea otter stock NMIN RMAX FR PBR Annual estimated human-caused
  • mortality and serious injury
  • Stock status
    Mainland 3,194 0.06 0.1 9.58 Figures by specific source, where known, are provided in the SAR Strategic. San Nicolas Island 78 0.13 0.1 0.51 Summary 3,272 10
    Response to Public Comments

    We received comments on the draft SAR from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), Friends of the Sea Otter, and the Humane Society of the United States. We present substantive issues raised in those comments that are pertinent to the SAR, edited for brevity, along with our responses below.

    Comment 1: Without adequate observer coverage to document the rate at which sea otters are being caught in crab and lobster gear, it is not possible to know if modifications to these traps should be required. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the Service collaborate with NMFS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to (1) establish an observer program with adequate coverage to obtain reliable information on the rate and circumstances under which sea otters are being taken in crab and lobster trap fisheries operating within the range of the southern sea otter, or (2) implement a precautionary requirement for all trap gear to be modified to reduce the probability of sea otter bycatch to near zero.

    Response: We recognize that the probability of bycatch in trap fisheries will rise as the southern sea otter expands its range to the north, increasing overlap with the Dungeness crab fishery, and to the south, increasing overlap with the spiny lobster fishery and finfish trap fishery in southern California. We will continue to work with CDFW and other partners to assess the best means of testing and, if appropriate, implementing precautionary trap modifications in the fisheries that may interact with sea otters. We note that, based on tests that have occurred to date, relatively minor modifications to Dungeness crab traps (reducing the fyke opening from 4 × 9 inches (10.2 × 22.9 cm) to 3 × 9 inches (7.6 × 22.9 cm)) would exclude most independent (post-weaning) sea otters while not impeding the capture of crabs (Hatfield et al. 2011). Comparable modifications have not been identified for spiny lobster traps or the large-fyke finfish traps used in southern California. While observer programs would increase our opportunity to detect bycatch, analyses indicate that high levels of observer effort would be required to avoid false-negative conclusions, even if the rate of bycatch mortality is substantial enough to reduce the population growth rate (Hatfield et al. 2011). We will continue to work with USGS, NMFS, and CDFW to explore options for assessing sea otter bycatch.

    Comment 2: Figure 3 in the draft SAR shows an increasing trend in the number of strandings as a proportion of the spring count of sea otters (termed “relative mortality” in the report), from roughly 5 percent in the late 1980s to 12 percent in the past 4 years. The draft SAR attributes this pattern largely to the increase in shark-bite mortality at the peripheries of the southern sea otter's range. However, this interpretation assumes that search effort and stranding rates have not increased, an assumption that is not addressed in the report. The Service should address all of the factors that could explain the apparent increase in the relative number of strandings.

    Response: We have added a discussion of other factors that could explain the increase in the relative number of strandings and the relative frequency of shark-bitten carcasses.

    Comment 3: The Service should place greater emphasis on the fact that the “relative mortality” rate is an underestimate of the true mortality rate because a substantial portion of carcasses likely never strand or are never found, as has been demonstrated in this and other sea otter populations.

    Response: We have added text emphasizing that relative mortality is an index of mortality and an underestimate of the true mortality rate.

    Comment 4: An effective opportunity for public review and comment cannot occur if the public does not have access to all of the sources of information used to produce a draft stock assessment. The draft SAR contains numerous references to sources of information that are not easily available to the public. The Service should consider implementing a policy regarding the use of different data/information sources that would ensure that those sources have been reviewed and are easily available to the public. The Commission understands that in some cases the best available science has not been reviewed and published. In those cases, if the Service uses such information in an SAR, it should make the information easily available to the public.

    Response: We utilize peer-reviewed publications whenever possible. However, when the best available science on a topic of direct importance to the SAR has not yet been reviewed and published, we believe it is preferable to present that information to the public rather than to withhold it. We may cite an informal source when new scientific information becomes available and update the citation in a subsequent revision of the SAR when that information has been reviewed and published. We have updated several such citations in the final SAR. Our notice of availability (81 FR 87951; December 6, 2016) includes contact information, which is made available for the use of anyone wishing to obtain additional information, including any of the sources of information referenced in the SAR.

    Comment 5: In accordance with section 117(c)(1)(A) of the MMPA, the Service may review a stock's status annually and update its stock assessment report only when it considers it appropriate to do so. However, given the rapid changes that are ongoing within the current and historical range of the southern sea otter, the failure of the population to expand its range significantly in the past 20 years, and the sudden shifts in count trajectories in different parts of the range over the last few years, the Commission recommends that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service make its stock assessment reviews available yearly to the appropriate Scientific Review Group (SRG) and the Commission, at a minimum, from this point forward.

    Response: We typically provide a presentation to the Pacific SRG on the status of the southern sea otter even in years when we determine that a revision of the SAR is not warranted. We will continue to make such presentations and, from this point forward, will provide our reasoning to the Pacific SRG and Commission in years when we determine that a revision of the SAR is not warranted.

    Comment 6: “Stock definition and geographic range” must be expanded to include the importance of range expansion in southern sea otter survival and recovery.

    Response: We have added text emphasizing the importance of range expansion to recovery of the southern sea otter and referencing Service documents that discuss the subject in greater detail.

    Comment 7: “Current population trend” should be revised to include the declining trend in the southern portion of the range due to shark bite mortality.

    Response: We have added text that describes the regional declining trends and their relationship to increases in shark bite mortality.

    Comment 8: The SAR should identify shark bite mortality as a factor impeding the recovery of the southern sea otter and encourage the close monitoring of this significant trend. The Service should confirm that delisting would not be appropriate even if the delisting threshold of 3,090 animals is met for 3 consecutive years unless the threat posed by shark bites has been addressed.

    Response: We will continue to monitor shark-bite mortality through the stranding and necropsy programs led by USGS and CDFW, and we have added text that makes more explicit the relationship between high rates of shark-bite mortality and the lack of range expansion. However, we do not believe that the SAR is the appropriate document in which to discuss threats to the species in comprehensive detail or to make recommendations regarding delisting. We will update our assessment of the status of the southern sea otter in relation to the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(l) of the ESA in the next 5-year review.

    Comment 9: “Status of Stock” should be discussed in relation to the five statutory delisting criteria and the recovery plan, in addition to optimum sustainable population (OSP) under the MMPA, noting that OSP has been discussed for the California coast but should also be considered on a range-wide basis, after accounting for the possible need to avoid interbreeding between northern and southern sea otters.

    Response: As noted in our response to Comment 8, we do not believe that the SAR is the appropriate document in which to discuss threats to the species in comprehensive detail. However, we have added text that references our most recent 5-year review (Service 2015). We have also added text clarifying that a formal determination of OSP will be developed with reference to the entire historic range of the subspecies.

    Comment 10: “Habitat issues” should be revised to include (1) the spatial structure of southern sea otter habitat and its contribution in preventing recovery of the species and (2) a detailed discussion of the risk posed by oil spills.

    Response: We have added text clarifying the relationship between the pace of range expansion, the spatial structure of sea otter habitat, and oil spill risk. However, as noted in our response to Comments 8 and 9, we do not believe that the SAR is the appropriate document in which to discuss threats to the species in comprehensive detail. We address oil spill risk and the effects of the spatial structure of sea otter habitat on population growth in our most recent 5-year review (Service 2015). We will update our assessment of these and other factors in the next 5-year review.

    Comment 11: There are recent reports of what appear to be increasing rates of shooting-related incidents. For example, in 2016 alone there were reports of at least three sea otters being shot. In 2015, a California man was sentenced for shooting an air rifle at sea otters. While these incidents are more recent than the time period of the SAR, which is largely through 2014, they do represent the most recent available information and should be considered for inclusion since the Service provided information on some deaths as recently as 2016.

    Response: We have added text stating that three sea otters died of gunshot wounds in 2016. However, we do not include these mortalities in the current calculation of mean annual mortality because they occurred outside the 5-year analysis window (2011-2015).

    Additional References Cited Chinn, S.M., M.A. Miller, M.T. Tinker, M.M. Staedler, F.I. Batac, E.M. Dodd, L.A. Henkel. 2016. The high cost of motherhood: end-lactation syndrome in southern sea otters. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 52:307-318. doi: 10.7589/2015-06-158. Lafferty, K.D. M.T. and Tinker. 2014. Sea otters are recolonizing southern California in fits and starts. Ecosphere 5:50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00394.1. Tinker, M.T. 2014. Models and sea otter conservation. Pp. 257-300 in Larson, S., G. VanBlaricom and J. Bodkin, eds., Sea Otter Conservation. New York: Elsevier. Tinker, M.T., and B.B. Hatfield. 2016. California sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) census results, spring 2016. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1018. 10 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds1018. Authority

    The authority for this action is the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)

    Dated: July 26, 2017. Gregory Sheehan, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18169 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2017-0054; FXIA16710900000-156-FF09A30000] Foreign Endangered Species and Marine Mammals Issuance of Permits AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of permits.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application for each permit listed in this document, go to www.regulations.gov and search on the permit number provided in the tables in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joyce Russell, (703) 358-2023 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax); or [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we issued requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, we found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Permit No. Applicant Receipt of application Federal Register
  • notice
  • Permit issuance date
    Endangered Species 50819A Zoological Society of San Diego/San Diego Zoo Global 82 FR 24381; May 26, 2017 June 30, 2017. 18137C University of Wisconsin-Madison 82 FR 24381; May 26, 2017 July 3, 2017. 75285A Michael Ryckamn 82 FR 24381; May 26, 2017 June 29, 2017. 14745C Cleveland Metroparks Zoo 82 FR 24381; May 26, 2017 July 11, 2017. 06369C Indiana Purdue University 82 FR 14742, March 22, 2017 July 3, 2017. Marine Mammals 80164B North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management 81 FR 95628; December 28, 2016 July 3, 2017.
    Authority:

    We issue this notice under the authority of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the MMPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).

    Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18209 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [16XL LLWY9200000.L51010000.ER0000.LVRWK09K0990.241A.0 4500106832] Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment To Reconsider the January 19, 2017, Record of Decision Approving Segments 8 and 9 for the Gateway West Transmission Line Project, Idaho AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is reconsidering the decision to approve a Right-of-Way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project (Project). By this Notice the BLM announces the beginning of scoping to solicit public comments and identify issues associated with such reconsideration, including the potential amendment of several Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and Management Framework Plans (MFPs) in the project area. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The BLM will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 Decision, including the land use plan amendments associated with a specific action alternative identified in the Supplemental EIS.

    DATES:

    Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until September 27, 2017. In order to be included in the analysis, all comments must be postmarked prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to this EA by any of the following methods:

    Web site: https://www.blm.gov/gatewaywest Email: [email protected] Fax: 208-384-3326 Mail: BLM Boise District Office, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705

    Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the BLM Boise District Office, 3948 Development Ave,, Boise, ID 83705.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

    Contact Courtney Busse by calling 208-373-3872 or emailing at [email protected]. You can also contact Ms. Busse to have your name added to the BLM mailing list for the Project. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Ms. Busse. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with Ms. Busse. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    PacifiCorp, dba Rocky Mountain Power, and Idaho Power (Proponents) submitted an initial ROW application under FLPMA in 2007 to locate 500-kV electric transmission lines on Federal lands as part of the Project. The original Project comprised 10 transmission line segments originating at the Windstar Substation near Glenrock, Wyoming, and terminating at the Hemingway Substation near Melba, Idaho.

    After completing NEPA analysis in an EIS, the BLM issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in November 2013 that authorized routes and associated land use plan amendments on Federal lands for Segments 1 through 7, and Segment 10, but the BLM deferred a Decision for Segments 8 and 9 in southwestern Idaho.

    In August 2014, the BLM received from the Proponents a revised ROW application for Segments 8 and 9 and a revised Plan of Development for the Project, which the BLM determined required additional NEPA analysis through a Supplemental EIS. On October 7, 2016, the BLM released a Final Supplemental EIS that analyzed seven alternative ROW routes for Segments 8 and 9 and the land use plan amendments needed to accommodate each alternative route pair. The BLM issued a ROD on January 19, 2017, selecting the route described as Alternative 5 in the Final Supplemental EIS.

    Following the Decision, several environmental organizations, the State of Idaho, and Owyhee County, Idaho, appealed the ROW Decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). In a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of Idaho requested that the BLM reconsider the January 19, 2017, Decision and select an alternative with fewer impacts to State and county resources and communities. The Proponents also requested that the BLM reconsider the January Decision and possibly select the alternative proposed in their revised application, as more cost-effective and providing greater system reliability. On April 18, 2017, the IBLA granted BLM's Motion to Remand the January 19, 2017, Decision for reconsideration. The BLM's Motion was unopposed.

    On May 4, 2017, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 244), which incorporated the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey NCA Boundary Modification Act (Modification Act) by reference (Division G, Title IV, Sec. 431(a)).

    The President signed the Appropriations Act into law on May 5, 2017. The Modification Act directed the BLM to issue a ROW grant for the lands described in Sec. (b)(2) of the Modification Act for portions of Gateway West Segments 8 and 9, which represent the portions of Alternative 1 from the Final Supplemental EIS within the boundaries of the NCA. The Modification Act also removed the lands for this ROW from NCA status and stipulated that the mitigation framework presented in the Final Supplemental EIS will apply to the authorized segments. The Modification Act (Sec. (c)(1)) requires the BLM to issue the ROW (that portion in the NCA) within 90 days of the enactment of the Appropriations Act, or by August 2, 2017.

    In light of the Modification Act's non-discretionary direction to issue the statutory ROW, the BLM's reconsideration of the January 19, 2017, Decision will consider the alternative(s) from the Supplemental EIS that align with the statutory ROW, so as to meet the agency's purpose and need for action, i.e., to respond to the Proponents' ROW application and the direction of the Modification Act, and the no-action alternative.

    Because the route pairing described as Alternative 1 (routes described as Revised Proposed 8 and Revised Proposed 9) in the Supplemental EIS is the only alternative that meets these criteria, it will be analyzed as the action alternative for reconsideration.

    Furthermore, because the statutory ROW directed the BLM to issue a ROW grant for certain portions of the routes within the NCA boundaries previously analyzed in Alternative 1 in the Supplemental EIS, the EA and subsequent decision will address only public lands identified with Alternative 1 which lie outside the NCA boundaries that existed when the Final Supplemental EIS was published (October 7, 2016, 81 FR 69845). In the EA, the BLM plans to rely on the Supplemental EIS and the 2013 Final EIS for both the ROW alternatives for Segments 8 and 9 and the corresponding land use plan amendments necessary to support the alternative.

    Because the potential selection of a different ROW alternative would require a new decision for corresponding land use plan amendments, the BLM must ensure that it is satisfying the land use plan amendment requirements set forth in 43 CFR part 1600. The BLM is preparing an EA to inform reconsideration of the January 19, 2017, Decision and meet the regulatory requirements for amending land use plans, including public participation opportunities, and to ensure that any new information regarding the alternatives presented in the Supplemental EIS and 2013 Final EIS are analyzed. This Notice announces the beginning of scoping to seek public input on issues and planning criteria.

    The purpose of public scoping is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the EA. The BLM invites public participation and comment on those issues, potential impacts, and mitigation measures associated with granting ROWs on public lands for Segments 8 and 9 that may not have been addressed in the Final Supplemental EIS.

    The BLM identified and analyzed the following issues and concerns in the Final Supplemental EIS for Segments 8 and 9 of the Project:

    • Effects to the objects and values for which the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) was designated;

    • Land use conflicts and inconsistency with land use plans;

    • Effects of the project on local and regional socioeconomic conditions;

    • Effects on wildlife habitat, plants, and animals, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive species;

    • Effects to visual resources and existing view-sheds;

    • Effects to historic and cultural resources;

    • Effects to Indian trust assets;

    • Opportunities to apply mitigation strategies for on-site, regional, and compensatory mitigation; and

    • Siting on private lands versus public lands.

    Planning criteria considered for the plan amendments associated with each action alternative in the Supplemental EIS include the following:

    • NEPA;

    • Existing laws, regulations, and BLM policies;

    • Plans, programs and policies of other Federal, State, and local governments, and Indian tribes;

    • Public input;

    • Future needs and demands for existing or potential resource commodities and values;

    • Past and present use of public and adjacent lands;

    • Environmental impacts;

    • Social and economic values;

    • Public welfare and safety; and

    • National energy policies and plans.

    Land Use Plan Amendments

    The Supplemental EIS identified 17 amendments to BLM land use plans needed to authorize Alternative 1. The January 2017 Decision approved two amendments to the Twin Falls MFP and one amendment to the Snake River Birds of Prey RMP that would also be necessary to authorize Alternative 1. The January Decision set aside and, remand notwithstanding, these approved plan amendments remain in effect. In addition, the Modification Act superseded the need for seven plan amendments to the Snake River Birds of Prey RMP associated with Alternative 1 analyzed in the Supplemental EIS. As a result, selecting Alternative 1 in a Decision on reconsideration would require seven plan amendments to three current BLM land use plans, as follows:

    • Kuna MFP;

    • Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP; and

    • Jarbidge RMP (1987, for areas not covered by the 2015 Jarbidge RMP).

    In order to authorize Segment 8 in Alternative 1, the Kuna MFP would need an amendment to allow the transmission line outside of existing corridors. An amendment to the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP would be needed to allow the route near archeological sites and to change Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes. The 1987 Jarbidge RMP would need amendments to change VRM Classes, allow crossing of the Oregon National Historic Trail, and change a utility avoidance/restricted area designation.

    In order to authorize Segment 9 in this alternative, the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would need an amendment to change VRM Class II to VRM Class III for areas still managed under that plan.

    The route pairing identified in the Supplemental EIS as Alternative 5 (Route 8G and Route 9K) was selected in the January Decision. The January 19, 2017, ROD approved one amendment to the Bruneau MFP, two amendments to the Twin Falls MFP, and one amendment to the Snake River Birds of Prey RMP needed to grant a ROW for Alternative 5. These plan amendments remain in effect. The alignment pairing in this alternative does not connect with the ROW the BLM plans to issue pursuant to the Modification Act.

    Mitigation

    The Final Supplemental EIS presents a framework the BLM has developed in cooperation with the Proponents for assessing compensatory mitigation under FLPMA and for implementing NEPA regulations on mitigating project-related impacts to National Historic Trails; cultural resources; wetlands; and resources, objects, and values in the NCA. The framework discusses avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures that would be required under each alternative analyzed in the Supplemental EIS. The Modification Act directs implementation of this framework during construction of each respective project segment (Sec. 2(c)(A)). Impacts to Greater sage-grouse and migratory birds are addressed in the 2013 Final EIS for the entire, 10-segment project and in the corresponding 2013 ROD. The Supplemental EIS develops further mitigation measures for indirect effects to Greater sage-grouse.

    You may submit comments in writing to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above, according to the time frame named in the DATES section above. We will provide additional opportunities for public participation as appropriate.

    During the Supplemental EIS process, the BLM coordinated through the NEPA scoping process and comment period to help fulfill the public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Any additional information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action, but not available during preparation of the Supplemental EIS, will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources during preparation of the EA.

    During preparation of the Supplemental EIS, the BLM consulted with Indian tribes on a Government-to-Government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies, and will continue such consultations during preparation of the EA. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Tribes and other stakeholders who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the EA as a Cooperating Agency.

    The BLM will provide a public comment period for the Draft RMP Amendment(s)/EA. The BLM will continue to work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the amendments and selected route that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.

    The BLM used an interdisciplinary approach to select an alternative from the Supplemental EIS to respond to the ROW application, and will continue this approach in reconsidering the January 19, 2017, Decision.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.

    Timothy M. Murphy, BLM Idaho State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18181 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0023877; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Brooklyn Museum, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribe, has determined that the cultural item listed in this notice meets the definition of sacred object and object of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request to the Brooklyn Museum. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural item to the Indian Tribe stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Brooklyn Museum at the address in this notice by September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nancy Rosoff, Andrew W. Mellon Senior Curator, Arts of the Americas, Brooklyn Museum, 200 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11238, telephone (718) 501-6283, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item under the control of the Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY, that meets the definition of sacred object and object of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum that has control of the Native American cultural item. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Item

    On August 7, 1905, Stewart Culin, the Brooklyn Museum's Curator of Ethnology (1903-1929) purchased a woman's dance skirt from Brouse Brizard in Arcata, Humboldt County, CA. Culin purchased the skirt at Brizard's home, not in his Arcata store. Following Culin's purchase of the skirt, it was brought to the Brooklyn Museum where it was accessioned as Hupa and given the accession number 06.331.7923. This woman's dance skirt has been identified as Wiyot and as a sacred object and object of cultural patrimony.

    Museum records and information provided during consultation with Wiyot representatives indicate that the skirt is culturally affiliated with the Wiyot Tribe of northwestern California. The skirt is identified as Wiyot based upon its physical appearance and construction. It is made of deer hide and adorned with abalone shell, clam shell, copper, bear grass, maidenhair fern, iris fibers, and glass beads. While most abalone shell is a dull grey or white on the outside, the cut shell pieces on the Brooklyn Museum skirt are red, which means that they are from red abalone, an identification that relates to the Wiyot story of Abalone Woman, whose drops of blood created the red-shelled abalone. The story explains why red abalone is only found along the shores of Wiyot territory, and therefore is used in the making of Wiyot regalia.

    Tribal representatives also identified the skirt as a ceremonial garment worn by Wiyot women during the Brush Dance, which is held during the annual World Renewal Ceremony in winter or early spring. As such, it is considered sacred, and an inalienable ceremonial object, which was obtained without the consent of an appropriate Wiyot authority. The Wiyot maintain that Brouse Brizard was not the rightful owner of the garment because Wiyot law prohibits the sale of ceremonial items.

    The circumstances in which sacred and ceremonial objects were separated from the Wiyot people can be explained by their history. In 1860, Wiyot life in their traditional homeland was violently interrupted by the nighttime massacre of as many as 250 women, children and elders, probably by gold prospectors. The massacre resulted in survivors fleeing Wiyot territory and ultimately seeking protection among their Hupa and Yurok neighbors. During a lengthy period when the Wiyot were refugees, ceremonial life was curtailed. In 1981, the Wiyot Tribe received federal recognition and, in 1991, they were moved to the Table Bluff Reservation. Slowly they have been buying back lands that were originally part of their traditional territory. Today the Wiyot Tribe has approximately 650 enrolled members. It has a language revitalization program, and an active repatriation program to bring cultural heritage objects back home. In 2014, after the industrial contamination of their sacred site on Indian Island was cleaned up, the Wiyot held their first World Renewal Ceremonial in over 150 years.

    Determinations Made by the Brooklyn Museum

    Officials of the Brooklyn Museum have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the one cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the one cultural item described above has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object and object of cultural patrimony and the Wiyot Tribe, California (previously listed as the Table Bluff Reservation—Wiyot Tribe).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Nancy Rosoff, Andrew W. Mellon Senior Curator, Arts of the Americas, Brooklyn Museum, 200 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11238, telephone (718) 501-6283, [email protected], by September 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the sacred object and object of cultural patrimony to the Wiyot Tribe, California (previously listed as the Table Bluff Reservation—Wiyot Tribe) may proceed.

    The Brooklyn Museum is responsible for notifying the Wiyot Tribe, California (previously listed as the Table Bluff Reservation—Wiyot Tribe) that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 26, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18188 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23693; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Denver Museum of Nature & Science, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science at the address in this notice by September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Chip Colwell, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, that meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Item(s)

    Prior to 1964, 10 cultural items were removed from The Pueblo of Acoma in Cibola County, NM. The 10 sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony include one Katsina Uuwaa'ka (AC.6501), collected by Byron Harvey III, a great grandson of Fred Harvey; one Katsina Uuwaa'ka (AC.7696), collected by the Taos Book Shop; one Katsina Uuwaa'ka (AC.4820), collected by William S. Dutton of La Posada Gift Shop; one ceremonial pot (AC.118), used to keep ceremonial paint and to collect rain water to make ceremonial medicine for curing ceremonies, collected by Erich Kohlberg of Kohlberg's Antiques and Indian Arts; two ceremonial pots (AC.2278 and AC.2279), used in kivas for ceremony, collected by Julius Gans, of Southwest Arts and Crafts in Santa Fe, NM; and four prayer sticks (AC.4809A, AC.4809C, AC4809D, and AC.4809E), collected by William S. Dutton of La Posada Gift Shop. All of the cultural objects were purchase by Mary and Francis Crane between 1954 and 1964. The Cranes then donated nine of the items to DMNS on May 27, 1983. The ceremonial pot (AC.118) was donated to DMNS in November of 1972.

    Cultural affiliation was established through documentation, consultation, and notification procedures undertaken by Damian Garcia and Aaron Sims, and corroborated by the DMNS's accession documentation, showing cultural affiliation with the Pueblo of Acoma.

    Determinations Made by the Denver Museum of Nature & Science

    Officials of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the 10 cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the 10 cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony and the Pueblo of Acoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Chip Colwell, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, email [email protected], by September 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony to the Pueblo of Acoma may proceed.

    The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying the Pueblo of Acoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 5, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-18184 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23749; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, have determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by September 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Anna Pardo, NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (ASM) that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    In the years 1963 through 1977, 2,542 cultural items were removed from the Grasshopper Pueblo site AZ P:14:1(ASM), in Navajo County, AZ. The items were removed during legally authorized excavations conducted by the University of Arizona Archeological Field School. Archeological collections from the site were brought to the museum at the end of each field season. The 2,542 unassociated funerary objects are 179 animal bones, 6 bone awls, 1 botanical specimen, 13 ceramic bowls, 12 ceramic jars, 1,677 ceramic sherds, 19 ceramic vessels, 16 ceramic vessel fragments, 8 chipped stone cores, 502 chipped stone flakes, 3 flotation samples, 2 hammerstones, 2 hand stones, 24 lots of mineral, 1 mosaicked shell, 4 polishing stones, 5 pollen samples, 5 shell beads, 14 shell bracelets, 3 shell pendants, 1 shell tinkler, 2 snail shells, 5 soil samples, 4 stone artifacts, 1 stone blade, 3 stone knives, 2 stone pendants, 9 stone projectile points, 1 stone projectile point fragment, 1 stone scraper, 1 tree ring sample, 9 worked bone artifacts, 1 worked ceramic sherd, 1 worked shell, 3 worked stones, and 2 worked stone flakes.

    Site AZ P:14:1(ASM) is a large village site containing approximately 500 rooms in more than a dozen stone room blocks arranged around three main plazas. The site has been dated from A.D. 1275-1400, based on tree ring dates, architectural forms, building technology, and ceramic styles. These characteristics, the mortuary pattern, and other items of material culture are consistent with the archeologically-described Upland Mogollon or prehistoric Western Pueblo tradition.

    In 1932, 2 cultural items were removed from the Canyon Creek Ruin, AZ C:2:8(GP)/V:2:1(ASM), in Gila County, AZ during legally authorized excavations conducted by the Gila Pueblo Foundation, under the direction of Emil Haury. In 1950, the Gila Pueblo Foundation closed and the collections were transferred to the Arizona State Museum. The 2 unassociated funerary objects are 2 lots of organic material.

    Site AZ C:2:8(GP)/AZV:2:1(ASM) is a cliff dwelling site of approximately 140 rooms. Based on the ceramic and perishable artifact assemblage, the site is dated to A.D. 1300 to 1400. The ceramic and architectural forms are consistent with the archeologically described Upland Mogollon or prehistoric Western Pueblo traditions.

    A detailed discussion of the basis for cultural affiliation of archeological sites in the region where the above sites are located may be found in “Cultural Affiliation Assessment of White Mountain Apache Tribal Lands (Fort Apache Indian Reservation),” by John R. Welch and T.J. Ferguson (2005). To summarize, archeologists have used the terms Upland Mogollon or prehistoric Western Pueblo to define the archeological complex represented by the sites described above. Material culture characteristics of these traditions include a temporal progression from earlier pit houses to later masonry pueblos, villages organized in room blocks of contiguous dwellings associated with plazas, rectangular kivas, polished and paint-decorated ceramics, unpainted corrugated ceramics, inhumation burials, cradleboard cranial deformation, grooved stone axes, and bone artifacts. The combination of the material culture attributes and a subsistence pattern that included hunting and gathering augmented by maize agriculture helps to identify an earlier group. Archeologists have also remarked that there are strong similarities between this earlier group and present-day Tribes included in the Western Pueblo ethnographic group, especially the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. The similarities in ceramic traditions, burial practices, architectural forms, and settlement patterns have led archeologists to believe that the prehistoric inhabitants of the Mogollon Rim region migrated north and west to the Hopi mesas, and north and east to the Zuni River Valley. Certain objects found in Upland Mogollon archeological sites have been found to have strong resemblances with ritual paraphernalia that are used in continuing religious practices by the Hopi and Zuni. Some petroglyphs on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation have also persuaded archeologists of continuities between the earlier identified group and current-day Western Pueblo people. Biological information from AZ P:14:1(ASM) supports the view that the prehistoric occupants of the Upland Mogollon region had migrated from various locations to the north and west of the region.<