Federal Register Vol. 82, No.186,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 186 (September 27, 2017)

Page Range44879-45172
FR Document

82_FR_186
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 45161 - Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety ThreatsPDF
82 FR 45159 - Gold Star Mother's and Family's Day, 2017PDF
82 FR 45024 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 45015 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for June 2017PDF
82 FR 44936 - Fluazifop-P-Butyl; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 44942 - Oxathiapiprolin; Pesticide TolerancePDF
82 FR 45042 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Quality Control Requirements for Direct Endorsement LendersPDF
82 FR 45041 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Loan Sales Bidder Qualification StatementPDF
82 FR 45044 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Loan Sales Bidder Qualification StatementPDF
82 FR 45019 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for July 2017PDF
82 FR 45040 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD-Owned Real Estate Dollar Home Sales ProgramPDF
82 FR 44925 - Withholding on Payments of Certain Gambling WinningsPDF
82 FR 45041 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Housing Assistance Restructuring Program (Mark to Market)PDF
82 FR 45044 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance Underwriting Program Section 203(k)PDF
82 FR 45043 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act Reporting RequirementsPDF
82 FR 45010 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants-State-Level Activity FundsPDF
82 FR 44994 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 44994 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Non-Commercial Permit and Reporting Requirements in the Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish FisheryPDF
82 FR 44879 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 Through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14PDF
82 FR 44971 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 Through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14PDF
82 FR 45023 - Change in Filing Location for Commercial Overnight Documents FCC Warehouse Address ChangePDF
82 FR 44999 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 45072 - Requirements Regarding Mandatory Review for DeclassificationPDF
82 FR 44886 - Small Business Size Standards; Adoption of 2017 North American Industry Classification System for Size StandardsPDF
82 FR 45109 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of WisconsinPDF
82 FR 45109 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of ILLINOISPDF
82 FR 45005 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 45038 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 45035 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 45116 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, 2017/2018PDF
82 FR 45074 - Regulatory Guide: “Physical Inventories and Material Balances at Fuel Cycle Facilities”PDF
82 FR 45073 - Emergency Planning for Research and Test Reactors and Other Non-Power Production and Utilization FacilitiesPDF
82 FR 44984 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Whiting; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 21-3; Trawl Rationalization ProgramPDF
82 FR 45032 - Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, Part F AIDS Education and Training CentersPDF
82 FR 44993 - Determination of Overfishing or an Overfished ConditionPDF
82 FR 45025 - Notice of Agreement FiledPDF
82 FR 45011 - Extension of the Application Deadline Date for Certain Fiscal Year 2018 Education Research and Special Education Research Grant ProgramsPDF
82 FR 45031 - Advisory Committee; National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee; RenewalPDF
82 FR 45009 - Notice of Proposed Methodology for the 2018 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment ReportPDF
82 FR 45013 - Application for Presidential Permit; Central Maine Power CompanyPDF
82 FR 45008 - Notice of Availability of The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study-Brandon Road Draft Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement-Will County, IllinoisPDF
82 FR 44993 - U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 45111 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple TTB Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 45111 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; TARP Capital Purchase Program-Executive CompensationPDF
82 FR 45029 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 45023 - Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts (SFFAC) 8, Federal Financial ReportingPDF
82 FR 45026 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 45027 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 45008 - Record of Decision for Final Supplement I to the Final Environmental Statement, Mississippi River Between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri and IllinoisPDF
82 FR 44995 - Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy (USMA)PDF
82 FR 45024 - Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Next MeetingPDF
82 FR 44918 - Remedial Action Schemes Reliability StandardPDF
82 FR 45014 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 45110 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Laura W. Bush Traveling FellowshipPDF
82 FR 45030 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection (ICR-Rev) (OMB Approval Number 0985-0004); Title III Supplemental Form to the Financial Status Report (SF-425)PDF
82 FR 45071 - Information Collection: Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear MaterialPDF
82 FR 44929 - Special Local Regulation; Fautasi Ocean Challenge Canoe Race, Pago Pago Harbor, American SamoaPDF
82 FR 45040 - Approval of Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., Toa Baja, PR, as a Commercial GaugerPDF
82 FR 45039 - Approval of American Cargo Assurance, Pasadena, TX, as a Commercial GaugerPDF
82 FR 45012 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Report of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention Services and of Program Settings Where Services Are Provided in Accordance With Part C, and Report on Infants and Toddlers . . .PDF
82 FR 45011 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual State Application Under Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act as Amended in 2004PDF
82 FR 45009 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Lead Agency Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements Under Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)PDF
82 FR 45069 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 45023 - Opening of Second Filing Window for Eligible Full Power and Class A Television StationsPDF
82 FR 45033 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research ProtectionsPDF
82 FR 45029 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Plan for Grants to States for Refugee ResettlementPDF
82 FR 45070 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under CERCLAPDF
82 FR 44998 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 45067 - Certain Basketball Backboard Components and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in Its Entirety Based on a Settlement Agreement; Termination of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 44999 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 45114 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Supplement to VA Forms 21-526, 21P-534, and 21P-535 (For Philippine Claims)PDF
82 FR 45113 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Applications & Appraisals for Employment for Title 38 Positions and TraineesPDF
82 FR 45112 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Certification of School Attendance-REPSPDF
82 FR 44996 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Acquisition of Information TechnologyPDF
82 FR 44997 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; TaxesPDF
82 FR 45028 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 44917 - Commission Guidance on Pay Ratio DisclosurePDF
82 FR 45039 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 45038 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 45036 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 45085 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 980NY (Electronic Complex Order Trading) To Clarify the Priority of Electronic Complex Orders and To Modify Aspects of Its Complex Order Auction ProcessPDF
82 FR 45080 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the GraniteShares Platinum Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201PDF
82 FR 45099 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 7.31E Relating to the Minimum Trade Size Modifier for Additional Order Types and Expanding the Minimum Trade Size Modifier for Existing Order TypesPDF
82 FR 45103 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the iShares Inflation Hedged Corporate Bond ETF, a Series of the iShares U.S. ETF Trust, Under Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund SharesPDF
82 FR 45095 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update and Amend its Options Rules, as Described Herein, To Reduce Unnecessary Complexity and To Promote Standardization and ClarityPDF
82 FR 45095 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt the Midpoint Extended Life OrderPDF
82 FR 45106 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filings of Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt the Clearing Agency Securities Valuation FrameworkPDF
82 FR 45045 - Softwood Lumber Products From Canada; Revised Schedule for the Subject InvestigationsPDF
82 FR 45070 - Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health: Joint Subcommittee Meeting Between Subcommittee on Medical Advice Re: Weighing Medical Evidence and Subcommittee on Industrial Hygienists (IH) & Contract Medical Consultants (CMC) and Their ReportsPDF
82 FR 44986 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 45045 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of RecordsPDF
82 FR 45046 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of RecordsPDF
82 FR 45068 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 44982 - Rules of General ApplicationPDF
82 FR 45032 - Request for Comments on the Draft Department Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022PDF
82 FR 44879 - Freedom of Information Act Regulations; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 44966 - Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Redistricting and Importer RepresentationPDF
82 FR 44879 - Privacy Act Regulations; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 45033 - Meeting of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 45034 - Request for Public Comment: 60 Day Notice for Extension of Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery: IHS Customer Service Satisfaction and Similar SurveysPDF
82 FR 45027 - Draft-National Occupational Research Agenda for ConstructionPDF
82 FR 45025 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 45110 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Auburn AviationPDF
82 FR 45079 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 45025 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 44984 - Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone StandardPDF
82 FR 44932 - Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone StandardPDF
82 FR 45076 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 44915 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Midland, TX and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Odessa, TX and Midland, TXPDF
82 FR 44914 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Louisiana Towns; Leesville, LA; and Patterson, LAPDF
82 FR 44981 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Norman, OK; and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oklahoma City, OKPDF
82 FR 44903 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 44974 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 44907 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 44945 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock ProtectionPDF
82 FR 44898 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 44986 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III)PDF
82 FR 44900 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 44895 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) AirplanesPDF

Issue

82 186 Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Redistricting and Importer Representation, 44966-44971 2017-20610 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 44986 2017-20619
Army Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy, 44995-44996 2017-20671 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Draft National Occupational Research Agenda for Construction, 45027-45028 2017-20605 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45028-45029 2017-20634 2017-20676 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: State Plan for Grants to States for Refugee Resettlement, 45029-45030 2017-20649 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Special Local Regulations: Fautasi Ocean Challenge Canoe Race, Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa, 44929-44932 2017-20664 Commerce Commerce Department See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Title III Supplemental Form to Financial Status Report, 45030-45031 2017-20666 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 44998-44999 2017-20638 2017-20642 2017-20643 2017-20645 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Acquisition of Information Technology, 44996-44997 2017-20637 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Taxes, 44997-44998 2017-20636 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Arms Sales, 44999-45008 2017-20700 2017-20707
Delaware Delaware River Basin Commission NOTICES Water Quality Assessment Reports: Proposed Methodology for 2018 Delaware River and Bay, 45009 2017-20682 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual State Application under Part C of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as Amended in 2004, 45011-45012 2017-20659 Report of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention Services and of Program Settings Where Services are Provided in Accordance with Part C, and Report on Infants and Toddlers, 45012-45013 2017-20660 State Lead Agency Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements under Part C of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 45009-45010 2017-20658 Survey on Use of Funds under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants—State-Level Activity Funds, 45010-45011 2017-20713 Application Deadlines: Certain Fiscal Year 2018 Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs; Extension, 45011 2017-20684 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Presidential Permit Applications : Central Maine Power Co., 45013-45014 2017-20681
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study--Brandon Road Draft Integrated Feasibility Study; Will County, IL, 45008 2017-20680 Mississippi River between Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri and Illinois; Record of Decision, 45008-45009 2017-20672 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for 2008 Ozone Standard, 44932-44936 2017-20598 Pesticide Tolerances: Fluazifop-P-Butyl, 44936-44942 2017-20748 Oxathiapiprolin, 44942-44945 2017-20747 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for 2008 Ozone Standard, 44984 2017-20599 NOTICES Certain New Chemicals: Receipt and Status Information for July 2017, 45019-45023 2017-20727 Receipt and Status Information for June 2017, 45015-45019 2017-20749 Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Guidance: Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts 8, Federal Financial Reporting, 45023 2017-20675 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 44900-44914 2017-20113 2017-20559 2017-20567 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes, 44895-44898 2017-20112 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 44898-44900 2017-20213 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Louisiana Towns; Leesville, LA; and Patterson, LA, 44914-44915 2017-20591 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Establishment of Class E Airspace: Midland, TX; Odessa, TX and Midland, TX, 44915-44917 2017-20592 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 44974-44980 2017-20566 Amendment of Class D Airspace and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Amendment of Class E Airspace: Norman, OK; Oklahoma City, OK, 44981-44982 2017-20572 NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: Auburn Aviation, 45110-45111 2017-20603 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Change in Filing Location for Commercial Overnight Documents FCC Warehouse Address Change, 45023 2017-20708 Meetings: Disability Advisory Committee, 45024 2017-20670 Opening of Second Filing Window for Eligible Full Power and Class A Television Stations, 45023-45024 2017-20656 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 45024-45025 2017-20790 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard, 44918-44925 2017-20669 NOTICES Combined Filings, 45014-45015 2017-20668 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 45025 2017-20685 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45025-45026 2017-20604 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 45025-45027 2017-20600 2017-20674 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 45027 2017-20601 2017-20673 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee, 45031-45032 2017-20683 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Third National Survey of WIC Participants, 44986-44992 2017-20117 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Draft Department Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022, 45032-45033 2017-20613 Meetings: 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 45033 2017-20607 Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, 45033-45034 2017-20651
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Funding Awards: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, Part F AIDS Education and Training Centers, 45032 2017-20687 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: HUD-Owned Real Estate Dollar Home Sales Program, 45040-45041 2017-20725 Loan Sales Bidder Qualification Statement, 45041-45042, 45044 2017-20728 2017-20729 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act Reporting Requirements, 45043 2017-20715 Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Housing Assistance Restructuring Program (Mark to Market), 45041 2017-20717 Quality Control Requirements for Direct Endorsement Lenders, 45042-45043 2017-20730 Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance Underwriting Program, 45044-45045 2017-20716 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery: Customer Service Satisfaction and Similar Surveys, 45034-45035 2017-20606 Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Withholding on Payments of Certain Gambling Winnings, 44925-44929 2017-20720 International Trade Com International Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Rules of General Application, 44982-44984 2017-20615 NOTICES Complaints: Certain LED Lighting Devices, LED Power Supplies, and Components Thereof, 45069-45070 2017-20657 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Basketball Backboard Components and Products Containing Same, 45067-45068 2017-20644 Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 45045 2017-20621 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 45045-45046 2017-20616 2017-20617 2017-20618 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 45070 2017-20648 Labor Department Labor Department See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

National Capital National Capital Planning Commission RULES Freedom of Information Act Regulations; Correction, 44879 2017-20611 Privacy Act Regulations; Correction, 44879 2017-20609 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection, 44945-44965 2017-20350 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 45035-45038 2017-20629 2017-20697 National Human Genome Research Institute, 45038-45039 2017-20698 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 45038 2017-20630 National Institute of Nursing Research, 45039 2017-20631 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fisheries off West Coast States: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific whiting; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 21-3; Trawl Rationalization Program, 44984-44985 2017-20692 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 44994-44995 2017-20712 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Non-commercial Permit and Reporting Requirements in Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish Fishery, 44994 2017-20711 Determination of Overfishing or an Overfished Condition, 44993-44994 2017-20686 Meetings: Integrated Ocean Observing System Advisory Committee, 44993 2017-20679 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Marine Geophysical Survey in Southwest Pacific Ocean, 2017/2018, 45116-45156 2017-20696 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas, LLC, Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendments, 44879-44886 2017-20710 PROPOSED RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas, LLC, Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendments, 44971-44974 2017-20709 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, 45071-45072 2017-20665 Guidance: Emergency Planning for Research and Test Reactors and Other Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities, 45073-45074 2017-20693 Physical Inventories and Material Balances at Fuel Cycle Facilities, 45074-45075 2017-20694 Mandatory Review for Declassification, 45072-45073 2017-20706 Office Special Office of the Special Counsel NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 45076-45079 2017-20596 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45079-45080 2017-20602 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Defense and National Security: Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats; Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the U.S. (Proc. 9645), 45161-45172 2017-20899 Special Observances: Gold Star Mother's and Family's Day (Proc. 9644), 45157-45160 2017-20895 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Commission Guidance on Pay Ratio Disclosure, 44917-44918 2017-20632 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 45103-45106 2017-20625 Depository Trust Co.; National Securities Clearing Corp.; Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 45106-45109 2017-20622 Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 45095 2017-20623 NYSE American, LLC, 45085--45103 2017-20624 2017-20626 2017-20628 NYSE Arca, Inc., 45080-45085 2017-20627 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES Small Business Size Standards: Adoption of 2017 North American Industry Classification System for Size Standards, 44886-44895 2017-20705 NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Illinois, 45109 2017-20703 Wisconsin, 45109-45110 2017-20704 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Laura W. Bush Traveling Fellowship, 45110 2017-20667 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45111-45112 2017-20678 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: TARP Capital Purchase Program—Executive Compensation, 45111 2017-20677
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., 45040 2017-20663 American Cargo Assurance, 45039-45040 2017-20662 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45114 2017-20641 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Applications and Appraisals for Employment for Title 38 Positions and Trainees, 45113-45114 2017-20640 Certification of School Attendance—Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors, 45112-45113 2017-20639 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health; Subcommittee Teleconference, 45070-45071 2017-20620 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 45116-45156 2017-20696 Part III Presidential Documents, 45157-45172 2017-20899 2017-20895 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.

82 186 Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Rules and Regulations NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION 1 CFR Part 602 Freedom of Information Act Regulations; Correction AGENCY:

National Capital Planning Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on September 20, 2017. The document issued FOIA regulations with changes necessitated by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-185).

DATES:

Effective October 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel and Chief FOIA Officer, 202-482-7223, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In FR Doc. 2017-19997 appearing on page 44036 in the Federal Register on Wednesday, September 20, 2017, the following corrections are made:

§ 602.14 [Corrected]
1. On page 44043, in the second column, the section heading, “§ 602.15—Fee waiver requirements.” is corrected to read “§ 602.14—Fee waiver requirements.” 2. On page 44043, in the second column, the first sentence of 602.14(a) which reads “Records responsive to a Request shall be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge below that established under § 602.14” is corrected to read as follows: “Records responsive to a Request shall be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge below that established under § 602.13.” Dated September 21, 2017. Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-20611 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7502-01-P
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION 1 CFR Part 603 Privacy Act Regulations; Correction AGENCY:

National Capital Planning Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on September 20, 2017. The document issued New Privacy Act Regulations.

DATES:

Effective October 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel and Chief FOIA Officer, 202-482-7223, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In FR Doc. 2017-19996 appearing on page 44044 in the Federal Register on Wednesday, September 20, 2017, the following corrections are made:

§ 603.3 [Corrected]
1. On page 44048, in the second column, the first of the two paragraphs designated (c)(3)(vii) is correctly redesignated as paragraph (c)(3)(vi). Dated: September 21, 2017. Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-20609 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7520-01-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2017-0138] RIN 3150-AK05 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 Through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System (NUHOMS® System) listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to renew, for an additional 40-year period, Revision 1 of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and 13, and Amendment No. 14 of Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. These changes require, among other things, that all future amendments and revisions to this CoC include evaluations of the impacts to aging management activities (i.e., time-limited aging analyses and aging management programs (AMPs)) to ensure that they remain adequate for any changes to spent fuel storage cask systems, structures, and components (SSCs) within the scope of the renewal. Each general licensee using a NUHOMS® System at a reactor site must have a program to establish, implement, and maintain written procedures for each AMP described in the AREVA Inc. (AREVA) Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). In addition, the renewals reflect the change in the name of the CoC holder from AREVA to TN Americas LLC, and make several other changes as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective December 11, 2017, unless significant adverse comments are received by October 27, 2017. If this direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Comments received on this direct final rule will also be considered to be comments on a companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0138. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 301-415-6825; email: [email protected], or Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 301-415-5175; email: [email protected] Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Rulemaking Procedure III. Background IV. Discussion of Changes V. Voluntary Consensus Standards VI. Agreement State Compatibility VII. Plain Writing VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Regulatory Analysis XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality XIII. Congressional Review Act XIV. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0138 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0138.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0138 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Rulemaking Procedure

This rule is limited to the changes associated with renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, Revision 1, and Amendment No. 14 to CoC No. 1004 and does not include other aspects of the NUHOMS® System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue these renewals because they represent a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. This direct final rule will become effective on December 11, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by October 27, 2017, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications (TSs).

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

III. Background

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). A general license authorizes a reactor licensee to store spent fuel in NRC-approved casks at a site that is licensed to operate a power reactor under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52. This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on December 22, 1994 (59 FR 65898) that approved the NUHOMS® System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1004. Most recently, on January 25, 2017 (82 FR 8353), the NRC approved Revision 1 to the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11 and 13, and issued Amendment No. 14.

IV. Discussion of Changes

On November 4, 2014, AREVA submitted a renewal application for the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, CoC No. 1004, for a period of 40 years beyond the initial certificate term. AREVA supplemented its request on October 16, 2015; June 6, 2016; and September 29, 2016.

On November 18, 2016, TN Americas LLC provided notification that it had changed from AREVA TN Americas, a former operating division of AREVA Inc., to a stand-alone entity named TN Americas LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary company of AREVA Nuclear Materials LLC. Because the renewed CoCs will be issued to TN Americas LLC, this notice will specify “TN Americas” when referring to the CoC holder, and “AREVA” when referring to the applicant.

The renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 (Amendment No. 12 was never issued) were conducted in accordance with the renewal provisions in 10 CFR 72.240. This section of NRC spent fuel storage regulations authorizes the NRC staff to include any additional certificate conditions it deems necessary to ensure that the cask system's SSCs continue to perform their intended safety functions during the certificates' renewal period. The NRC staff has included additional conditions in the renewed certificates. These conditions do not revise the authorized contents of any existing or planned NUHOMS® System. The changes require, among other things, that all future amendments and revisions to this CoC include evaluations of the impacts to aging management activities (i.e., time-limited aging analyses and AMPs) to ensure that they remain adequate for any changes to spent fuel storage cask SSCs within the scope of the renewal. Each general licensee using a NUHOMS® System at a reactor site must have a program to establish, implement, and maintain written procedures for each AMP described in the AREVA UFSAR. The program must include provisions for changing AMP elements, as necessary, and within the limitations of the approved licensing bases, to address new information on aging effects based on inspection findings and/or industry operating experience during the renewal period. Another CoC change would extend these requirements to NUHOMS® System users at new reactors licensed under the NRC's regulations.

As documented in its Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC renewal request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC renewal. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident or sabotage condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident or sabotage. This renewal does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of the renewal of the initial certificate and these amendments would remain well within the NRC's 10 CFR part 20 limits on doses to workers and members of the public. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

This direct final rule revises the NUHOMS® System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by renewing for an additional 40-year period the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004. The renewal consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the renewed CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER.

The NRC has determined that the NUHOMS® System cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the renewed CoC, renewed TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into NUHOMS® System casks that meet the criteria of the renewed initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004 under 10 CFR 72.212.

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the NUHOMS® System design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

VI. Agreement State Compatibility

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, and the Category “NRC” does not confer regulatory authority on the State, the State may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements by means consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws.

VII. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact A. The Action

The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the NUHOMS® System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to renew, for an additional 40-year period, the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004. This action does not revise the authorized contents of existing or planned NUHOMS® Systems. Specifically, these changes require, among other things, that all future amendments and revisions to this CoC include evaluations of the impacts on aging management activities (i.e., time-limited aging analyses and AMPs) to ensure that they remain adequate for any changes to spent fuel storage cask SSCs within the scope of the renewal. Each general licensee using a NUHOMS® System at a reactor site must have a program to establish, implement, and maintain written procedures for each AMP described in the AREVA UFSAR. The program must include provisions for changing AMP elements, as necessary, and, within the limitations of the approved licensing bases, to address new information on aging effects based on inspection findings and/or industry operating experience during the renewal period. Another CoC change would extend these requirements to NUHOMS® System users at new reactors licensed under 10 CFR part 52.

B. The Need for the Action

This direct final rule is necessary to authorize the continued use of the NUHOMS® System design by power reactor licensees for dry spent fuel storage at reactor sites. Specifically, this rule extends the expiration date for the NUHOMS® System certificates for an additional 40 years, allowing a reactor licensee to continue using them under general license provisions in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), the facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license stores spent fuel in dry casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72.

C. Environmental Impacts of the Action

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment (EA) for the 1990 final rule. The EA for these renewals tiers off of the EA for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past EAs is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).

The NRC staff has determined that the environmental impacts of renewing the NUHOMS® System certificates for an additional 40 years remain bounded by the EA for the 1990 final rule. As required by 10 CFR 72.240, applications for renewal of a spent fuel storage CoC design are required to demonstrate, in time-limited aging analyses and a description of an AMP, that SSCs important to safety will continue to perform their intended function for the requested renewal term. As discussed in the NRC staff's SER for the renewal of the NUHOMS® System certificates, the NRC staff has approved conditions in the renewed CoCs requiring the general licensee to implement the AMPs described in the renewal application and incorporated into the storage system's UFSAR. These conditions ensure that NUHOMS® Systems will continue to perform their intended safety functions and provide adequate protection of public health and safety throughout the renewal period.

Incremental impacts from continued use of NUHOMS® Systems under a general license for an additional 40 years are not considered significant. When the general licensee follows all procedures and administrative controls, including the conditions established as a result of the renewals, no effluents are expected from the sealed dry storage cask systems. Activities associated with cask loading and decontamination may result in some small incremental liquid and gaseous effluents, but these activities will be conducted under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52 reactor operating licenses, and effluents will be controlled within existing reactor site technical specifications. Because reactor sites are relatively large, any incremental offsite doses due to direct radiation exposure from the spent fuel storage casks are expected to be small, and when combined with the contribution from reactor operations, well within the annual dose equivalent of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) limit to the whole body specified in 10 CFR 72.104. Incremental impacts on collective occupational exposures due to dry cask spent fuel storage are expected to be only a small fraction of the exposures from operation of the nuclear power station.

The NUHOMS® Systems are also designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an ISFSI include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

During the promulgation of the amendments that added subpart K to 10 CFR part 72 (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990), the NRC staff assessed the public health consequences of dry cask system storage accidents and sabotage events. In the supporting analyses for these amendments, the NRC staff determined that a release from a dry cask storage system would be comparable in magnitude to a release from the same quantity of fuel in a spent fuel storage pool. As a result of these evaluations, the NRC staff determined that, because of the physical characteristics of the storage casks and conditions of storage that include specific security provisions, the potential risk to public health and safety due to accidents or sabotage is very small.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident or sabotage condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant.

There are no changes to cask design or fabrication requirements in the renewed initial certificate or the renewed Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 that would result in an increase in occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of the renewal of the initial certificate and amendments. Therefore, the occupational exposure or offsite dose rates would remain well within applicable 10 CFR part 20 limits.

Decommissioning of dry cask spent fuel storage systems under a general license would be carried out as part of a power reactor's site decommissioning plan. In general, decommissioning would consist of removing the spent fuel from the site, decontaminating cask surfaces, and decontaminating and dismantling the ISFSI where the casks were deployed. Under normal and off-normal operating conditions, no residual contamination is expected to be left behind on supporting structures. The incremental impacts associated with decommissioning dry cask storage installations are expected to represent a small fraction of the impacts of decommissioning an entire nuclear power station.

In summary, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that differ significantly from the environmental impacts evaluated in the EA supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. Compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR parts 20 and 72 would ensure that adequate protection of public health and safety will continue. The NRC, in its SER for the renewal of the NUHOMS® System, has determined that if the conditions specified in the CoC to implement these regulations are met, adequate protection of public health and safety will be maintained.

Based on the previously stated assessments and its SER for the requested renewal of the NUHOMS® System certificates, the NRC has determined that the expiration date of this system in 10 CFR 72.214 can be safely extended for an additional 40 years, and that commercial nuclear power reactor licensees can continue using the system during this period under a general license without significant impacts on the human environment.

D. Alternative to the Action

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of these renewals and end the direct final rule. Under this alternative, the NRC would either: (1) Require general licensees using NUHOMS® Systems to unload the spent fuel from these systems and either return it to a spent fuel pool or re-load it into a different NRC-approved dry storage cask system listed in 10 CFR 72.214; or (2) require that users of existing NUHOMS® Systems request site-specific licensing proceedings to continue storage in these systems.

The environmental impacts of requiring the licensee to unload the spent fuel and either return it to the spent fuel pool or re-load it into another NRC-approved dry storage cask system would result in increased radiological doses to workers. These increased doses would be due primarily to direct radiation from the casks while the workers unloaded, transferred, and re-loaded the spent fuel. These activities would consist of transferring the dry storage canisters to a cask handling building, opening the canister lid welds, returning the canister to a spent fuel pool or dry transfer facility, removing the fuel assemblies, and re-loading them, either into a spent fuel pool storage rack or another NRC-approved dry storage cask system. In addition to the increased occupational doses to workers, these activities may also result in additional liquid or gaseous effluents.

Alternatively, users of the dry cask storage system would need to apply for a site-specific license. Under this option for implementing the no-action alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, each separate license application, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

In summary, the no-action alternative would entail either more environmental impacts from transferring the spent fuel now in NUHOMS® Systems, or impacts from multiple licensing actions that, in the aggregate, are likely to be less than spent fuel transfer activities but the same as, or more likely greater than, the preferred action.

E. Alternative Use of Resources

Approval of the renewals of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.

F. Agencies and Persons Contacted

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this EA.

G. Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements of NEPA, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing EA, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment.

Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0132.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and TN Americas LLC. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

XI. Regulatory Analysis

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On January 22, 1994 (59 FR 65898), the NRC issued a final rule that approved the NUHOMS® System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1004.

On November 4, 2014, AREVA submitted a renewal application for the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 for the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, CoC No. 1004, for a period of 40 years beyond the initial certificate term. AREVA supplemented its request on October 16, 2015, June 6, 2016, and September 29, 2016. These requests are described in Section IV of this document, “Discussion of Changes.” Because AREVA filed its renewal application at least 30 days before the certificate expiration date of January 23, 2015, pursuant to the timely renewal provisions in 10 CFR 72.240(b), the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004 did not expire.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004 and end this direct final rule. Under this alternative, the NRC would either: (1) Require general licensees using NUHOMS® Systems to unload spent fuel from these systems and return it to a spent fuel pool or re-load it into a different NRC-approved dry storage cask system listed in 10 CFR 72.214; or (2) require that users of existing NUHOMS® Systems request site-specific licensing proceedings to continue storage in these systems. Therefore, the no-action alternative would result in a significant burden on licensees and an additional inspection or licensing caseload on the NRC. In addition, the no action alternative would entail either more environmental impacts from transferring the spent fuel now in NUHOMS® Systems, or impacts from multiple licensing actions that, in the aggregate, are likely to be less than spent fuel transfer activities but the same as, or more likely greater than, the preferred action.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the EA, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the actions in this direct final rule do not require a backfit analysis because they either do not fall within the definition of backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or they do not impact any general licensees currently using these systems. Additionally, the actions in this direct final rule do not impact issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses under 10 CFR part 52.

This direct final rule renews CoC No. 1004 for the NUHOMS® System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” to extend the expiration date of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 by 40 years. The renewed certificates would require implementation of an AMP for the 40 years after the storage cask system's initial 20-year service period.

Renewing these certificates does not fall within the definition of backfit under 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109, or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Extending the certificates' effective dates for 40 more years and requiring the implementation of AMPs does not impose any modification or addition to the design of an SSC of a cask system, or to the procedures or organization required to operate the system during the initial 20-year storage period of the system, as authorized by the current certificate.

General licensees that have loaded these casks, or that load these casks in the future under the specifications of the applicable certificate, may continue to store spent fuel in these systems for the initial 20-year storage period authorized by the original certificate. The AMPs required to be implemented by this renewal are only required to be implemented after the storage cask system's initial 20-year service period ends. As explained in the 2011 final rule that amended 10 CFR part 72 (76 FR 8872, Question I; February 16, 2011), the general licensee's authority to use a particular storage cask design under an approved CoC terminates 20 years after the date that the general licensee first loads the particular cask with spent fuel, unless the cask's CoC is renewed. Because this rulemaking renews the certificates, and renewal is a separate NRC licensing action voluntarily implemented by vendors, the renewal of these CoCs is not an imposition of new or changed requirements from which these licensees would otherwise be protected by the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109.

Even if renewal of this CoC system could be considered a backfit, TN Americas LLC, as the holder of the CoC and vendor of the casks, is not protected by the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR 72.62.

Unlike a vendor, general licensees using the existing systems subject to these renewals would be protected by the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR 72.62 and 10 CFR 50.109 if the renewals constituted new or changed requirements. But as previously explained, renewal of the certificates for these systems does not impose such requirements. The general licensees using these CoCs may continue storing material in their respective cask systems for the initial 20-year storage period identified in the applicable certificate or amendment with no changes. If general licensees choose to continue to store spent fuel in NUHOMS® Systems after the initial 20-year period, these general licensees will be required to implement AMPs for any cask systems subject to a renewed CoC, but such continued use is voluntary.

For these reasons, renewing the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC staff has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

XIII. Congressional Review Act

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

XIV. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

Document ADAMS
  • Accession No.
  • Federal Register
  • citation
  • Final Rule: “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” 55 FR 29181 Final Rule: List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Addition 59 FR 65898 AREVA, Inc.—Renewal Application for the Standardized NUHOMS® System—CoC 1004 ML14309A341 AREVA, Inc.—Revision 1 to Renewal Application for the Standardized NUHOMS® System—CoC 1004, Response to First Request for Additional Information ML15295A354 AREVA, Inc., Second Response to NRC RAI Re: Renewal Application for the Standardized NUHOMS® System—CoC 1004 ML16169A025 AREVA, Inc., Regarding Response to Re-Issue of Second Request for Additional Information—AREVA, Inc. Renewal Application for the Standardized NUHOMS® System—CoC 1004 ML16279A368 AREVA, Inc., AREVA Internal Reorganization—Effect on Certificate of Compliance Ownership ML16327A011 Submittal of NUH-003, “Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System For Irradiated Nuclear Fuel,” Revision 14 ML14255A191 Preliminary Certificate of Compliance and Preliminary Technical Specifications for CoC No. 1004, Renewed Amendment Nos. 1-11, Revision 1, and Amendment Nos. 13-14, Revision 1 ML17131A006 * TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System—Draft SER [Safety Evaluation Report] for Renewed CoC 1004, Amendment Nos. 1-11, 13 and 14 ML17131A121 * (package).

    The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2017-0138. The Federal Rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2017-0138); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

    Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

    PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

    2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1004 is revised to read as follows:
    § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

    Certificate Number: 1004.

    Initial Certificate Effective Date: January 23, 1995, superseded by Initial Certificate, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Initial Certificate, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Initial Certificate, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Initial Certificate, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: April 27, 2000, superseded by Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: September 5, 2000, superseded by Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: September 12, 2001, superseded by Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: February 12, 2002, superseded by Amendment Number 4, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 4, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 4, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 4, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: January 7, 2004, superseded by Amendment Number 5, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 5, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 5, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 5, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: December 22, 2003, superseded by Amendment Number 6, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 6, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 6, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 6, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: March 2, 2004, superseded by Amendment Number 7, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 7, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 7, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 7, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 8 Effective Date: December 5, 2005, superseded by Amendment Number 8, Revision 1 on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 9 Effective Date: April 17, 2007, superseded by Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 10 Effective Date: August 24, 2009, superseded by Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 11 Effective Date: January 7, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 12 Effective Date: Amendment not issued by the NRC.

    Amendment Number 13 Effective Date: May 24, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 14 Effective Date: April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 14, on December 11, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 14 Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc.

    SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel.

    Docket Number: 72-1004.

    Certificate Expiration Date: January 23, 2015.

    Renewed Certificate Expiration Date: January 23, 2055.

    Model Number: NUHOMS®-24P, -24PHB, -24PTH, -32PT, -32PTH1, -37PTH, -52B, -61BT, -61BTH, and -69BTH.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of September, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Frederick D. Brown, Acting Executive Director of Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20710 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 121 RIN 3245-AG84 Small Business Size Standards; Adoption of 2017 North American Industry Classification System for Size Standards AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is adopting, without change, its proposed revisions to small business size standards. With the adoption of the proposed changes, SBA incorporates the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) revision for 2017, identified as NAICS 2017, into its table of small business size standards. NAICS 2017 created 21 new industries by reclassifying, combining, or splitting 29 existing industries under changes made to NAICS in 2012 (NAICS 2012). SBA's size standards for these 21 new industries have resulted in an increase to size standards for six NAICS 2012 industries and part of one industry, a decrease to size standards for two, a change in the size standards measure from average annual receipts to number of employees for one, and no change in size standards for twenty industries and part of one industry.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective October 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Jorge Laboy-Bruno, Office of Size Standards, (202) 205-6618 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Effective October 1, 2000, SBA adopted NAICS 1997 industry definitions as a basis for its table of small business size standards, replacing the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) (65 FR 30836 (May 15, 2000)). Since then, OMB has issued four revisions to NAICS. SBA's table of size standards adopted the OMB's first revision, NAICS 2002, effective October 1, 2002 (67 FR 52597 (August 13, 2002)), the second revision, NAICS 2007, effective October 1, 2007 (72 FR 49639 (August 29, 2007)), and the third revision, NAICS 2012, effective October 1, 2012 (77 FR 49991 (August 20, 2012)).

    OMB published its fourth and latest revision, NAICS 2017, “Notice of NAICS 2017 final decisions” in the Federal Register on August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52584). The OMB notice stated that Federal statistical establishment data published for reference years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, should be published using NAICS 2017.

    As with the previous NAICS revisions, SBA is adopting the NAICS 2017 revision at the beginning of the new fiscal year (October 1, 2017) following the OMB's release of the NAICS revision for reasons as set forth under the Justification for the October 1, 2017 Effective Date section, below:

    Changes in NAICS 2017

    NAICS 2017 created 21 new NAICS industries by reclassifying, splitting, or merging 29 industries or their parts under NAICS 2012. Of those 21 new industries, five were created by merging two or more of thirteen NAICS 2012 industries in their entirety, while three were created by combining part of one industry with another industry. Three new industries were created by splitting two industries to two parts each with one part of each industry defined as a separate industry and combining other parts of the two industries to form a separate new industry. One new industry was formed by designating part of one industry as a separate industry. OMB also changed 6-digit NAICS codes for eight industries without changing their definitions and titles and amended the title of one industry without changing its 6-digit code. Table 1, “NAICS 2012 Industries or Their Parts Matched to NAICS 2017 Industries,” below, shows the changes from NAICS 2012 to NAICS 2017.

    Complete information on the relationship between NAICS 2012 and NAICS 2017 is available on the U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) Web site at http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. The Census Bureau's Web site also provides detailed documentation on Federal notices involving the replacement of SIC with NAICS, and all subsequent NAICS updates and revisions, including the August 8, 2016 “Notice of NAICS 2017 final decisions,” as well as concordances (i.e., correspondence tables) between SIC and NAICS 1997 and NAICS 2002, and between subsequent NAICS revisions.

    Table 1—NAICS 2012 Industries or Their Parts Matched to NAICS 2017 Industries NAICS 2012 code NAICS 2012 industry title Status code NAICS 2017 code NAICS 2017 industry title 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. crude petroleum extraction 211120 Crude Petroleum Extraction. natural gas extraction pt. 211130 Natural Gas Extraction. 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction pt. 211130 Natural Gas Extraction. 212231 Lead Ore and Zinc Ore Mining pt. 212230 Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining. 212234 Copper Ore and Nickel Ore Mining pt. 212230 Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining. 333911 Pump and Pumping Equipment Manufacturing pt. 333914 Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing. 333913 Measuring and Dispensing Pump Manufacturing pt. 333914 Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing. 335221 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing pt. 335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing. 335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing pt. 335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing. 335224 Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing pt. 335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing. 335228 Other Major Household Appliance Manufacturing pt. 335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing. 452111 Department Stores (except Discount Department Stores) pt. 452210 Department Stores. 452112 Discount Department Stores. insignificant perishable grocery sales pt. 452210 Department Stores. significant perishable grocery sales pt. 452311 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters. 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters pt. 452311 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters. 452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores nc. 452319 All Other General Merchandise Stores. 454111 Electronic Shopping pt. 454110 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses. 454112 Electronic Auctions pt. 454110 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses. 454113 Mail-Order Houses pt. 454110 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses. 512210 Record Production pt. 512250 Record Production and Distribution. 512220 Integrated Record Production/Distribution pt. 512250 Record Production and Distribution. 517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers nc. 517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) nc. 517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). 532220 Formal Wear and Costume Rental nc. 532281 Formal Wear and Costume Rental. 532230 Video Tape and Disc Rental nc. 532282 Video Tape and Disc Rental. 532291 Home Health Equipment Rental nc. 532283 Home Health Equipment Rental. 532292 Recreational Goods Rental nc. 532284 Recreational Goods Rental. 532299 All Other Consumer Goods Rental nc. 532289 All Other Consumer Goods Rental. 541711 Research and Development in Biotechnology. nanobiotechnologies research and experimental development laboratories pt. 541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology. except nanobiotechnologies research and experimental development laboratories 541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology). 541712 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology). nanotechnology research and experimental development laboratories pt. 541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology. except nanotechnology research and experimental development laboratories 541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology). 721310 Rooming and Boarding Houses nt. 721310 Rooming and Boarding Houses, Dormitories, and Workers' Camps. Key to Abbreviations. pt. = Part of 2017 industry. nc. = 6-digit NAICS codes changed without changing industries' definitions and titles. nt. = NAICS industry title amended without changing the 6-digit code. Size Standards for New Industries in NAICS 2017

    On October 22, 1999, SBA proposed to replace SIC with NAICS 1997 as the basis of industry definitions for its table of small business size standards (64 FR 57188). The proposed rule included a set of guidelines or rules that SBA applied to convert the size standards for industries under SIC to NAICS. The guidelines aimed to minimize the impact of applying a new industry classification system on SBA's size standards and on small businesses that qualified as small under the SIC based size standards. SBA received no negative comments against the proposed guidelines. SBA published its final rule on May 15, 2000 (65 FR 30386) (corrected on September 5, 2000, 65 FR 53533) adopting the resulting table of size standards based on NAICS 1997, as proposed. To be consistent, SBA used the same guidelines when it updated its table of size standards to adopt NAICS 2002, NAICS 2007, and NAICS 2012 revisions. In those updates as well, SBA received no adverse comments on using those guidelines, or on the resulting changes to the size standards. For the April 18, 2017 proposed rule to adopt NAICS 2017 for its size standards table, SBA also generally followed the same guidelines, as shown below in Table 2, “General Guidelines to Establish Size Standards for New Industries under NAICS 2017.”

    Table 2—General Guidelines To Establish Size Standards for New Industries Under NAICS 2017 If the NAICS 2017 industry is composed of: The size standard for the NAICS 2017 industry code will be: 1. A single NAICS 2012 industry or part of a single NAICS 2012 industry The same size standard as for the NAICS 2012 industry or part. 2. Two or more NAICS 2012 industries; two or more parts of an NAICS 2012 industry; parts of two or more NAICS 2012 industries; or one or more NAICS 2012 industries and part(s) of one or more NAICS 2012 industries, and 2a. they all have the same size standard The same size standard as for the NAICS 2012 industries or parts. 2b. they all have the same size measure (e.g., receipts, employees, etc.) but do not all have the same size standard The same size standard as for the NAICS 2012 industry or part that most closely matches the economic activity described by the NAICS 2017 industry, or
  • The highest size standard among the NAICS 2012 industries and part(s) that comprise the NAICS 2017 industry, provided that the highest size standard does not include dominant or potentially dominant firms.
  • 2c. they have different size measures (i.e., for example, some are based on receipts and others on employees) and hence do not all have the same size standard The same size standard as for the NAICS 2012 industry or part that most closely matches the economic activity described by the NAICS 2017 industry, or
  • The highest size standard among the NAICS 2012 industries and part(s) that comprise the NAICS 2017 industry, provided that the highest size standard does not include dominant or potentially dominant firms.
  • To apply this rule, SBA converts all size standards to a single measure (e.g., receipts, employees, etc.) using the size measure for the NAICS 2012 industry or part(s) that most closely match the economic activity described by the NAICS 2017 industry or using the size measure that applies to most of the NAICS industries or parts comprising the NAICS 2017 industry.

    In addition to the above general guidelines, in cases where a new industry is formed by merging multiple industries or their parts with substantially different levels or different measures of size standards, as detailed in the April 18, 2017 proposed rule, SBA also examined the relevant latest industry and Federal procurement data to determine an appropriate size standard for the new industry. Developed based on the above guidelines and analyses of the relevant data, where necessary, SBA's size standards for the new industries under NAICS 2017 are shown in Table 3, “Size Standards for New Industries in NAICS 2017.” Also shown in the table are the current size standards for the affected NAICS 2012 industries and their parts.

    As shown in Table 3, the size standards for most of the affected NAICS 2012 industries are not impacted and therefore remain unchanged under NAICS 2017. The majority of the changes consist of revisions to industry codes or titles, or mergers of two or more NAICS 2012 industries or their parts to new industries without impacting their size standards. Of the 29 NAICS 2012 industries affected by the revision, adopting NAICS 2017 increases size standards for six industries and part of one industry and decreases for two. This would also result in changing the size standard measure for one industry from average annual receipts to number of employees. Size standards for twenty industries and part of one industry do not change.

    Discussion of Comments

    For the April 18, 2017 proposed rule, SBA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to comment on proposed changes to size standards from the adoption of the NAICS 2017, which ended on June 19, 2017. SBA received three comments to the proposed rule, two of which were outside the scope of the proposed rule as discussed below.

    One commenter recommended that SBA change the size standard for the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons exception to NAICS 541330 (Engineering Services) from average annual revenues to the number of employees.

    Table 3—Size Standards for New Industries in NAICS 2017 NAICS 2012 code NAICS 2012 industry title Current size standard
  • (employees)
  • Current size standard
  • ($ million)
  • NAICS 2017 size standard
  • (employees)
  • NAICS 2017 size standard
  • ($ million)
  • NAICS 2017 code NAICS 2017 industry title
    211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction 1,250 crude petroleum extraction 1,250 1,250 211120 Crude Petroleum Extraction. natural gas extraction 1,250 1,250 211130 Natural Gas Extraction. 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 750 212231 Lead Ore and Zinc Ore Mining 750 750 212230 Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining. 212234 Copper Ore and Nickel Ore Mining 1,500 333911 Pump and Pumping Equipment Manufacturing 750 750 333914 Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing. 333913 Measuring and Dispensing Pump Manufacturing 750 335221 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing 1,500 1,500 335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing. 335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing 1,250 335224 Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing 1,250 335228 Other Major Household Appliance Manufacturing 1,000 452111 Department Stores (except Discount Department Stores) $32.5 $32.5 452210 Department Stores. 452112 Discount Department Stores 29.5 insignificant perishable grocery sales 29.5 452112 Discount Department Stores 29.5 significant perishable grocery sales 29.5 29.5 452311 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters. 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 29.5 452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores 32.5 32.5 452319 All Other General Merchandise Stores. 454111 Electronic Shopping 32.5 38.5 454110 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses. 454112 Electronic Auctions 38.5 454113 Mail-Order Houses 38.5 512210 Record Production 7.5 250 512250 Record Production and Distribution. 512220 Integrated Record Production/Distribution 1,250 517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers 1,500 1,500 517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) 1,500 1,500 517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). 532220 Formal Wear and Costume Rental 20.5 20.5 532281 Formal Wear and Costume Rental. 532230 Video Tape and Disc Rental 27.5 27.5 532282 Video Tape and Disc Rental. 532291 Home Health Equipment Rental 32.5 32.5 532283 Home Health Equipment Rental. 532292 Recreational Goods Rental 7.5 7.5 532284 Recreational Goods Rental. 532299 All Other Consumer Goods Rental 7.5 7.5 532289 All Other Consumer Goods Rental. 541711 Research and Development in Biotechnology 1,000 nanobiotechnologies research and experimental development laboratories 1,000 1,000 541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology. except nanobiotechnologies research and experimental development laboratories 1,000 1,000 541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology). 541712 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) 1,000 nanotechnology research and experimental development laboratories 1,000 1,000 541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology. except nanotechnology research and experimental development laboratories 1,000 1,000 541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology). 721310 Rooming and Boarding Houses 7.5 7.5 721310 Rooming and Boarding Houses, Dormitories, and Workers' Camps.

    Similarly, another commenter recommended that SBA consider changing the size standard for NAICS 488190 (Other Support Activities for Air Transportation) from revenues to employees. The commenters argued that the change would allow small businesses providing those services to continue to compete and succeed in a market dominated by large businesses which provide similar services as an ancillary function to their primary business. They provided an analysis of the Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation (FPDS-NG) data to describe the competitive structure of their respective industries to support their recommendations.

    Since NAICS 541330 and 488190 were not impacted by the NAICS 2017 revision, SBA did not review those industries nor did it propose any changes to their size standards in the April 2017 proposed rule. As part of the first five-year comprehensive review of size standards under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act) (Pub. L. 111-240, September 27, 2010), in 2012, SBA increased the size standard for the Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons exception to NAICS 541330 from $27 million to $35.5 million (77 FR 7489, (February 10 2012)) and increased the size standard for NAICS 488190 from $7 million to $30 million (77 FR 10943, (February 24, 2012)). In 2014, they were further increased to $38.5 million and $32.5 million, respectively, for inflation (79 FR 33647 (June 12, 2014)). SBA will review these size standards again in the coming years as part of the second five-year review of size standards, as required by the Jobs Act. Interested parties, including the commenters, will have an opportunity to comment when SBA publishes the proposed rule for their industries.

    The third commenter recommended that SBA consider raising the small business size standard for the Home Health Equipment and Rental industry from $32.5 million to $35 million, an increase of 7.7 percent. The commenter argued the increase reflects the anticipated inflation and the cost of doing business over the next five years. The commenter also noted that a higher size standard for NAICS 532283 would allow some large firms to gain small business status and help some small firms retain their small business status into the future. Thus, as a result, that Federal agencies will have a larger pool of small businesses from which to draw for their small business procurement programs, the commenter concluded.

    The NAICS 2017 revision changed the 6-digit code for the Home Health Equipment and Rental industry from 532291 to 532283 without changing the industry definition. Accordingly, for new NAICS 532283, SBA applied the same $32.5 million that currently applies to NAICS 532291. The adoption of NAICS 2017 led to changes in size standards only when the new industry was formed by merging the existing industries or industry parts with different size standards, not when only the 6-digit code changed.

    Every five years, SBA reviews all monetary based size standards for inflation and makes necessary adjustments. SBA's latest inflationary adjustment to size standards was in 2014, which resulted in an increase to the size standard for NAICS 532291 from $30 million to $32.5 million. SBA anticipates issuing the next inflationary adjustment of all monetary based size standards sometime in 2019 and interested parties will have an opportunity to comment at that time. Additionally, as part of the second five-year review of size standards under the Jobs Act, SBA will also review all size standards in the coming years against the latest available industry and Federal market data and make appropriate adjustments. (In the first five-year review, SBA increased the size standard for NAICS 532291 from $7 million to $30 million (77 FR 58747 (September 24, 2012)). The commenter will have an opportunity to comment when SBA publishes the proposed rule for NAICS Sector 53, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing.

    SBA considered each comment and determined that they were not germane to the purpose of the proposed rule, which was to adopt NAICS 2017 as a basis for its table of size standards. The intent and methodology of the proposed rule did not provide for changing the size standard for an industry whose NAICS code was not affected by the NAICS revision, nor did it provide for adjusting a size standard for inflation or the cost of doing business. Accordingly, SBA is not modifying its April 18, 2017 proposed rule based on the comments received and is adopting the proposed rule, as published.

    Justification for the October 1, 2017 Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that “publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except * * * as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the APA provision delaying the effective date of a rule for 30 days after publication is to provide interested and affected members of the public sufficient time to adjust their behavior before the rule takes effect. For the reasons set forth below, SBA finds that good cause exists to make this final rule become effective on October 1, 2017, less than 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

    • In its August 8, 2016 notice, OMB stated that Federal statistical establishment data published for reference years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, should be published using NAICS 2017. October 1, 2017 is the start of the new Federal Government fiscal year following OMB's adoption of NAICS 2017 effective January 1, 2017, and is consistent with SBA's adoption of previous NAICS revisions effective at the start of the next fiscal year after the OMB's effective date. Federal contracting data and related statistics will be more consistent and comparable with past data for analyzing future small business activity if the revised size standards are adopted at the beginning of a new fiscal year. Similarly, users of size standards and Federal contracting data, such as Federal prime contractors developing their subcontracting plans, can have more consistent data to examine the past and future Federal contracting trends.

    • Small business size standards apply to most Federal agencies and their programs involving small businesses; the time lag between the OMB's effective date and SBA's update to its size standards has already given them time to implement the changes and develop training tools, if necessary. For instance, in July 2017, SBA provided Integrated Award Environment with an advance copy of the updated size standards table to update the Federal contracting databases such as the System for Award Management.

    • The rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and the impacts from changes to size standards due to the adoption of the NAICS 2017 are minimal. This final rule impacts size standards for less than 10 industries involving about 60 firms, with a vast majority of them gaining small business status under the revised size standards. Those firms will benefit from an earlier effective date.

    • The impacted firms have had an opportunity to review the changes and submit comments during the notice and comment period for this rule. None of the three comments SBA received on the April 18, 2017 proposed rule opposed the changes. The affected firms and other interested parties have had ample time to adjust their behavior, if necessary.

    Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771, 12988, and 13132, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C., Ch. 35) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) Executive Order 12866

    OMB has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule incorporates the OMB's 2017 revisions of NAICS, which SBA uses to identify industries in the United States for purposes of establishing small business size standards. As discussed in the Supplementary Information above, the size standard of some industries would change because of the NAICS 2017 revisions. However, SBA has determined that virtually all businesses currently defined as small under the NAICS 2012 based size standards will continue to be small under the NAICS 2017 based size standards. This rule will also affect other Federal Government programs that provide a benefit for small businesses. In order to help explain the need of this rule and the rule's potential benefits and costs, SBA is providing below a Cost Benefit Analysis. This final rule is also not a “major rule” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800.

    Cost Benefit Analysis 1. Is there a need for the regulatory action?

    SBA believes that adopting small business size standards based on NAICS 2017 is in the best interests of small businesses. SBA's mission is to aid and assist small businesses through a variety of financial, procurement, business development, and advocacy programs. To assist the intended beneficiaries of these programs effectively, SBA establishes numerical definitions to determine which businesses are deemed eligible for Federal small business assistance. NAICS 2017 provides the latest industry definitions reflecting the latest changes in industry structure. The Small Business Act (the Act) provides SBA's Administrator with the responsibility for establishing definitions for small business. The Act also requires that small business definitions vary from industry to industry reflecting differences among the various industries. 15 U.S.C. 632(a). By analyzing and reviewing size standards based on the latest NAICS definitions, SBA can more accurately and appropriately fulfill its mandate. If SBA does not use the latest industry definitions, size standards would not accurately reflect differences among industries. In addition, the Jobs Act requires SBA to review all size standards and make necessary adjustments to reflect current industry and market conditions at least every five years. To better serve this mandate, SBA needs to evaluate industry data based on the latest NAICS industry definitions available. In this final rule, SBA generally followed the same guidelines that the Agency used for adopting prior NAICS revisions for its size standards, as spelled out under the Supplemental Information section, above. For certain NAICS 2017 industries involving NAICS 2012 industries with substantially different size standards, SBA also analyzed the relevant industry and program data to determine the size standards for them. Size standards based on NAICS 2017 industry definitions and corresponding data will serve SBA's mission more effectively.

    2. What are the potential benefits and costs of this regulatory action?

    The vast majority of the changes from NAICS 2012 to NAICS 2017 consist of revisions to industry titles or 6-digit codes or mergers of some NAICS 2012 industries or their parts to form the industries in NAICS 2017 without impacting their size standards. Of the 29 affected NAICS 2012 industries or their parts, SBA's size standards using NAICS 2017 will result in increases to size standards for six NAICS 2012 industries and part of one industry, decreases for two industries, and the change of size standard from average annual receipts to number of employees for one industry. The size standards will remain unchanged for other affected industries or parts.

    Based on the 2012 Economic Census data for the affected NAICS 2012 industries, SBA estimates that approximately 60 additional businesses would gain small business status under the revised size standards. That represents about 0.1 percent of the number of small businesses in the affected industries. For the two industries for which the size standard will decrease, SBA also estimates that fewer than five firms that qualify as small under current size standards under NAICS 2012 will no longer qualify. However, almost all of those firms do not currently participate in any small business programs.

    The benefits of adopting NAICS 2017 and the resulting revisions to size standards will accrue to three groups in the following ways: (1) Some businesses that are above their current size standards may gain small business status, thereby becoming eligible to participate in Federal small business assistance programs, including SBA's financial assistance programs, economic injury disaster loans, and Federal procurement opportunities intended for small businesses; (2) growing small businesses that are close to exceeding the current size standards for their NAICS 2012 industry may retain their small business status under NAICS 2017, and can continue participating in the above programs; and (3) Federal agencies will have a larger pool of small businesses from which to draw for their small business procurement programs because they will be able to define more accurately the principal purposes of their procurements under NAICS 2017, as required by 13 CFR 121.402(b).

    Additional firms gaining small business status under NAICS 2017 may benefit under SBA's various business development and contracting programs. These include the 8(a) Business Development program and programs benefiting small businesses located in Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones), Women Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs). Added competition may also result in lower prices for some Federal contracts reserved for small businesses, although SBA cannot quantify this benefit. Based on data for fiscal years 2013-2015, SBA estimates that approximately $700,000 in Federal contracts could be awarded to the newly defined small businesses under the size standards revisions due to the adoption of NAICS 2017.

    Under SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs, SBA would be able to guarantee more loans, although, in this case too, the number and amount of additional loans cannot be estimated accurately. Based on the Agency 7(a) and 504 loan data for fiscal years 2014-2016, SBA estimates that about two additional loans, totaling approximately $200,000, could be made to the newly defined small businesses under the NAICS 2017 size standards. Under the Jobs Act, SBA can now guarantee substantially larger loans than in the past. Additionally, the Jobs Act established an alternative size standard for SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs for applicants that do not meet the size standards for their industries. Specifically, section 1116 of the Jobs Act provides that if a firm applying for a 7(a) or 504 loan does not meet the size standard for its industry, it might still qualify if it has a tangible net worth that does not exceed $15 million and an average net income after Federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for its preceding two completed fiscal years that does not exceed $5 million. Thus, the updated size standards may result in an increase in SBA's loan guarantees to small businesses in the affected industries, but SBA cannot quantify this impact.

    Newly defined small businesses will also benefit from SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program. Since this program is contingent on the occurrence and severity of a disaster, SBA cannot make a meaningful estimate of future EIDL benefit.

    To the extent that newly defined small firms under NAICS 2017 could become active in Federal procurement programs, this may entail some additional administrative costs to the Federal Government associated with additional bidders for Federal small business procurement opportunities. More firms may seek SBA's guaranteed loans. More will be enrolled in the SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search database. Since more firms will qualify as small, more may also seek certification as 8(a) or HUBZone firms, or qualify for WOSB, SDVOSB, and/or small disadvantaged business (SDB) status. It is important to point out that most business entities that are already registered in SAM will not be required to update their SAM profiles. However, it will be incumbent on registrants to review their profiles to ensure that they have the correct NAICS codes. SAM requires that registered companies review and update their profiles annually, and therefore, businesses will need to pay particular attention to the changes to determine if they might affect them. They will also have to verify and update, if necessary, their Representations and Certifications in SAM. Further, firms are required to verify that their size representation in SAM is accurate prior to submitting an offer for a contract. FAR 52.204-8(d).

    Among the newly qualified businesses seeking SBA's assistance, there could be some additional costs associated with compliance and verification of small business status and protests of small business status. These added costs are likely to be minimal because mechanisms are already in place to handle these administrative requirements.

    The costs to the Federal Government may be higher on some Federal contracts under the higher revised size standards under NAICS 2017. With more businesses defined as small, Federal agencies might choose to set aside more contracts for competition among small businesses rather than using full and open competition. The movement from unrestricted to set-aside contracting will likely result in competition among fewer total bidders, although there will be a larger pool of small businesses to submit offers. In addition, higher costs may result when additional full and open contracts are awarded to HUBZone businesses because of a price evaluation preference. The additional costs associated with fewer bidders, however, will likely be minor since, as a matter of law, procurements may be set aside for small businesses or reserved for the 8(a), HUBZone, WOSB, or SDVOSB Programs only if awards are expected to be made at fair and reasonable prices.

    The revised size standards may have some distributional effects among large and small businesses. Although SBA cannot estimate with certainty the actual outcome of gains and losses among small and large businesses, there are several likely impacts. There may be a transfer of some Federal contracts from large businesses to small businesses. Large businesses may have fewer Federal contract opportunities as Federal agencies decide to set aside more Federal contracts for small businesses. In addition, some agencies may award more Federal contracts to HUBZone firms instead of large businesses since HUBZone concerns may be eligible for price evaluation adjustments when they compete on full and open procurement opportunities. Similarly, currently defined small businesses may receive fewer Federal contracts due to the increased competition from more businesses defined as small under NAICS 2017. This transfer may be offset by more Federal procurements set aside for all small businesses. The number of newly defined and expanding small businesses that are willing and able to sell to the Federal Government will limit the potential transfer of contracts away from large and small businesses under the existing size standards. SBA cannot estimate with precision the potential distributional impacts of these transfers.

    SBA's adoption of NAICS 2017 and resulting revisions to size standards is consistent with SBA's statutory mandate to assist small business by providing access to capital and credit, Government contracts, and management and technical assistance. Updated size standards based on the latest industry definitions ensure that Federal small business assistance is more effectively targeted to its intended beneficiaries. The Small Business Act states that “the Administrator shall ensure that the size standard varies from industry to industry to the extent necessary to reflect the differing characteristics of the various industries.” 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(3). With the adoption of the latest industry definitions in NAICS 2017, SBA's size standards are more consistent with the differing characteristics among the various industries.

    Executive Order 13563

    A description of the need for this regulatory action and benefits and costs associated with this action including possible distribution impacts that relate to Executive Order 13563 are included above in the Cost Benefit Analysis.

    To engage interested parties in this action, SBA reached out to all Federal agencies advising them that the Agency plans to update its table of size standards to NAICS 2017, effective October 1, 2017, and that agencies must continue using the current size standards until that date. Adopting the updated size standards on October 1, 2017 is consistent with SBA's adoptions of previous NAICS revisions at the beginning of the new fiscal year following the OMB's January 1 effective date of NAICS revisions for Federal statistical agencies.

    Unlike the previous NAICS revisions which SBA adopted for its size standards either through a direct final rule or through an interim final rule, for the adoption of NAICS 2017 revision, SBA issued a proposed rule, seeking comments to better engage the public in the process. SBA received no germane adverse comments to the proposed rule. SBA is adopting the updated table of size standards, effective October 1, 2017. SBA will also issue a press release on the publication of the final rule and update the “What's New with Size Standards” page on its Web site at www.sba.gov/size.

    Executive Order 13771

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

    Executive Order 12988

    This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

    Executive Order 13132

    For purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule will not have substantial, direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, SBA has determined that this final rule has no Federalism implications warranting preparation of a Federalism assessment.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, SBA has determined that this final rule would not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this final rule may have an impact on some small businesses in industries for which size standards have been revised. As described above, this rule may affect small businesses applying for Federal government contracts, loans under SBA's 7(a), 504, and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Programs, and assistance under other Federal small business programs.

    Immediately below, SBA sets forth a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of this final rule addressing the following questions: (1) What are the need for and objectives of the rule?; (2) What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small businesses to which the rule will apply?; (3) What are the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule?; (4) What are the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule?; and (5) What alternatives will allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory objectives while minimizing the impact on small businesses?

    1. What are the need for and objectives of the rule?

    The Small Business Act requires that small business size standards vary from industry to industry reflecting the differing characteristics of the various industries. SBA uses the latest NAICS as a basis of industry definitions for its table of size standards. As part of its five-year review of and revisions to NAICS industry definitions, OMB published its latest NAICS revision, NAICS 2017, on August 8, 2016. According to OMB's notice, Federal establishment and industry data for reference years beginning on or after January 1, 2017 should be published using NAICS 2017. This rule amends SBA's small business size regulations to incorporate NAICS 2017 into its table of size standards. This not only makes SBA's size standards more reflective of the latest industry differences but also makes them more consistent with latest industry data the Agency uses to establish, review or adjust size standards. Updating size standards to the latest industry definitions also serves the SBA's mandate to review all size standards and make appropriate adjustments to reflect market conditions under the Jobs Act.

    2. What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small businesses to which the rule will apply?

    With the update of size standards to the latest industry definitions under NAICS 2017, Federal small business assistance is more effectively targeted to its intended beneficiaries. The adoption of NAICS 2017 will result in increases in size standards for six industries and part of one industry under NAICS 2012 and decreases for two. The size standards for the rest of the 29 affected industries will remain unchanged. In industries whose size standards have increased due to the adoption of NAICS 2017, about 60 firms above the current size standards will qualify as small under the updated size standards, thereby making them eligible for Federal small business assistance programs. Based on the recent data, SBA estimates that approximately $700,000 in Federal contracts and about $200,000 in SBA loans could be awarded to the newly defined small businesses under the updated size standards. The updated size standards will enable more small businesses to maintain their small business size status for a longer period. In the two NAICS 2012 industries for which the size standard will decrease, about 3-4 firms below the current size standards will lose their small business size status under the NAICS 2017 based size standards. However, the program data suggests that this will not cause much impact on them. Currently, they are not participating in any small business programs. Additionally, in both industries, Federal contracting and SBA's loan activities are quite insignificant.

    3. What are the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the rule?

    The size standard changes due to the adoption of NAICS 2017 impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on small businesses. However, qualifying for Federal small business contracting and other programs may require businesses to register in SAM and recertify in SAM that they are small at least once annually. Therefore, the newly qualified small businesses opting to participate in those programs must comply with SAM requirements. There are no costs associated with either SAM registration or annual recertification. Changing size standards alters the access to SBA's financial and other Federal programs that assist small businesses, but does not impose a regulatory burden because size standards neither regulate nor control business behavior.

    4. What are the relevant Federal rules, which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule?

    Under section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(c), Federal agencies must generally use SBA's size standards to define a small business, unless specifically authorized by statute to do otherwise. In 1995, SBA published in the Federal Register a list of statutory and regulatory size standards that identified the application of SBA's size standards as well as other size standards used by Federal agencies (60 FR 57988 (November 24, 1995)). The Small Business Act and SBA's regulations allow Federal agencies to develop different size standards if they believe that SBA's size standards are not appropriate for their programs, with the approval of SBA's Administrator (13 CFR 121.903). The RFA authorizes a Federal agency to establish an alternative small business definition, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (5 U.S.C. 601(3)). SBA is not aware of any Federal rule that would duplicate or conflict with establishing or updating size standards.

    5. What alternatives will allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory objectives while minimizing the impact on small entities?

    By law, SBA is required to develop numerical size standards for establishing eligibility for Federal small business assistance programs. Other than varying levels of size standards by industry and changing the size measures, no practical alternative exists to the systems of numerical size standards. SBA considered continuing to use NAICS 2012 as a basis of industry definitions for its table of size standards. However, that would render SBA's table of size standards incompatible with Federal industry and establishment statistics and other databases.

    List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs— business, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 121 as follows:

    PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 662, and 694a(9).

    2. In § 121.201, amend the table, “Small Business Size Standards by NAICS Industry” as follows: a. Remove the entries for 211111 and 211112; b. Add entries for 211120 and 211130; c. Remove the entries for 212231 and 212234; d. Add an entry for 212230; e. Remove the entry 333911; f. Remove the entry 333913; g. Add an entry for 333914; h. Add an entry for 335220; i. Remove the entries for 335221, 335222, 335224, and 335228; j. Remove the entries for 452111, 452112, 452910, and 452990; k. Add entries for 452210, 452311, and 452319; l. Add an entry for 454110; m. Remove the entries for 454111, 454112, and 454113; n. Remove the entries for 512210 and 512220; o. Add an entry for 512250; p. Remove the entries for 517110 and 517210; q. Add entries for 517311 and 517312; r. Remove the entries for 532220, 532230, 532291, 532292, and 532299; s. Add entries for 532281, 532282, 532283, 532284, and 532289; t. Remove the entry for 541711; u. Remove the entry for 541712; v. Add entries for 541713 and 541714; w. Add an entry for 541715; x. Revise the NAICS industry title of the entry for 721310 to read, “Rooming and Boarding Houses, Dormitories, and Workers' Camps”; and y. Revise footnote 11 at the end of the table.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 121.201 What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes? NAICS codes NAICS U.S. industry title Size standards in millions of dollars Size standards in number of employees *         *         *         *         *         *         * 211120 Crude Petroleum Extraction 1,250 211130 Natural Gas Extraction 1,250 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 212230 Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining 750 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 333914 Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing 750 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing 1,500 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 452210 Department Stores 32.5 452311 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 29.5 452319 All Other General Merchandise Stores 32.5 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 454110 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses 38.5 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 512250 Record Production and Distribution 250 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers 1,500 517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) 1,500 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 532281 Formal Wear and Costume Rental 20.5 532282 Video Tape and Disc Rental 27.5 532283 Home Health Equipment Rental 32.5 532284 Recreational Goods Rental 7.5 532289 All Other Consumer Goods Rental 7.5 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 541713 Research and Technology in Nanotechnology 11 11 1,000 541714 Research and Technology in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology) 11 11 1,000 541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) 11 11 1,000 Except, Aircraft, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts 11 11 1,500 Except, Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment 11 11 1,250 Except, Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles, Their Propulsion Units and Propulsion Parts 11 11 1,250 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Footnotes     *         *         *         *         *         *         * 11 NAICS codes 541713, 541714, and 541715 — (a) “Research and Development” means laboratory or other physical research and development. It does not include economic, educational, engineering, operations, systems, or other nonphysical research; or computer programming, data processing, commercial and/or medical laboratory testing. (b) For research and development contracts requiring the delivery of a manufactured product, the appropriate size standard is that of the manufacturing industry. (c) For purposes of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Transfer Technology (STTR) programs, the term “research” or “research and development” means any activity which is (A) a systematic, intensive study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the subject studied; (B) a systematic study directed specifically toward applying new knowledge to meet a recognized need; or (C) a systematic application of knowledge toward the production of useful materials, devices, and systems or methods, including design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes to meet specific requirements. See 15 U.S.C. 638(e)(5) and section 3 of the SBIR and STTR policy directives available at www.sbir.gov. For size eligibility requirements for the SBIR and STTR programs, see § 121.702 of this part. (d) “Research and Development” for guided missiles and space vehicles includes evaluations and simulation, and other services requiring thorough knowledge of complete missiles and spacecraft.
    Dated: September 8, 2017. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20705 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9386; Product Identifier 2016-NM-056-AD; Amendment 39-19055; AD 2017-19-25] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) 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 Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of leakage of motorized cross-feed fuel valves. This AD requires repetitive inspections and operational checks of the affected fuel valves, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 1, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.eads.net. 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-2016-9386.

    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-2016-9386; 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 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2017 (82 FR 28274) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking that published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2016 (81 FR 85169) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of motorized cross-feed fuel valves and, depending on findings, applicable corrective action(s). The NPRM was prompted by leakage of a motorized cross-feed fuel valve. The SNPRM proposed to require a reduced compliance time for the initial inspection, the addition of repetitive inspections and operational checks, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct leaks in a motorized fuel valve, which could lead to failure of the fuel valve and consequent improper fuel system functioning or, in case of the presence of an ignition source, an airplane fire.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0004, dated January 9, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Leakage of a motorised cross-feed fuel valve Part Number (P/N) 7923227F was reported on a CN-235-100M aeroplane. The leakage was observed through the valve electrical connectors and detected during accomplishment of a functional check in accordance with task 28.007 of the CN-235 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRB CN-235-PV01). Identical motorised fuel valves are installed on civilian CN-235 and C-295 aeroplanes, as cross-feed, shut-off and defueling valves.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of a motorised fuel valve and consequent improper functioning of the fuel system or, in case of an ignition source, could lead to a fire, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    To address this potentially unsafe condition, Airbus Defence & Space (D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT)-CN235-28-0001 and AOT-C295-28-0001 to provide inspection instructions.

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0071 to require a one-time inspection of the affected motorised fuel valves and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new occurrences of fuel leakage involving the affected motorised fuel valves were reported and Airbus D&S issued Revision 1 of AOT-CN235-28-0001 and Revision 1 of AOT-C295-28-0001 to introduce repetitive inspections and operational checks of the affected motorised fuel valves.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0071, which is superseded, and introduces repetitive inspections and operational checks [and corrective actions, if necessary] of the affected fuel valves.

    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-2016-9386.

    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 Defense and Space has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016; and AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections, replacement of the motorized fuel valves, and operational checks and corrective actions on affected motorized fuel valves. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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 14 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 and operational check 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $3,570 Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 1,190

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the required 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 $38,448 $38,873

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    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): 2017-19-25 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.): Amendment 39-19055; Docket No. FAA-2016-9386; Product Identifier 2016-NM-056-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 1, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes; certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by leakage of a motorized cross-feed fuel valve, which was detected during accomplishment of a functional check. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct leaks in a motorized fuel valve, which could lead to failure of the fuel valve and consequent improper fuel system functioning or, in case of the presence of an ignition source, an airplane fire.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection of Motorized Fuel Valves

    Within the applicable compliance time defined in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do an initial general visual inspection of each motorized fuel valve having part number (P/N) 7923227F for the presence of fuel on the electrical connectors and inside the receptacles, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours.

    (1) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, have accumulated 6,000 flight cycles or more since first flight of the airplane: Do the inspection within 30 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, have accumulated less than 6,000 flight cycles since first flight of the airplane: Do the inspection within 300 flight hours or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (h) Replacement of Affected Parts

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any leaking of a motorized fuel valve having P/N 7923227F is detected: Before the next flight, replace the affected fuel valve with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable. A serviceable part is defined as a part that is not defective; it could be a used or new part. Replacement of a motorized fuel valve on an airplane does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.

    (i) Operational Check

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, accomplish an operational check of each motorized fuel valve P/N 7923227F, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable.

    (j) Corrective Actions

    If, during any operational check, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected, as described in Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable: Before further flight, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) to obtain instructions for corrective actions, and within the compliance time indicated in those instructions accomplish the corrective actions accordingly.

    (k) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, replacement of a motorized fuel valve having P/N 7923227F with a serviceable part on an airplane is allowed, provided that, within 30 flight cycles or 30 days, whichever occurs first after installation, the part passes an inspection done in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, both dated February 19, 2016, as applicable.

    (m) Reporting Requirement

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, report all inspection results to Airbus Defense and Space Technical Assistance Center (AMTAC); telephone +34 91 600 79 99; email [email protected] The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, operator name, the airplane model and serial number, valve part number and serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane.

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (n) 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 (o)(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 EASA; or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0004, dated January 9, 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-2016-9386.

    (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 (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.

    (p) 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 Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission, AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016.

    (ii) Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.eads.net.

    (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 September 14, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20112 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8434; Product Identifier 2015-NM-082-AD; Amendment 39-19057; AD 2017-19-27] 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 DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. This AD was prompted by the discovery of cracking on two test spoiler power control unit (PCU) manifolds during testing by the manufacturer. This AD requires replacement of affected spoiler PCUs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 1, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For Bombardier, Inc., service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

    For Parker-Hannifin Corporation service information identified in this final rule, contact Parker Aerospace, 14300 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618; telephone 949-833-3000; fax 949-809-8646; Internet http://www.parker.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-2015-8434.

    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-2015-8434; 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 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2017 (82 FR 32496) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1586) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require replacement of affected spoiler PCUs. The NPRM was prompted by the discovery of cracking on two test spoiler PCU manifolds during testing by the manufacturer. The SNPRM proposed to require replacement of affected spoiler PCUs, and also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the spoiler PCUs that could lead to the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-07R2, dated December 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During endurance and impulse testing of the spoiler PCU, cracks were discovered on two test spoiler PCU manifolds. Investigation determined that the crack initiation was due to the heat treat process. A cracked spoiler PCU manifold could cause the loss of one of the two hydraulic systems, resulting in the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems. This condition, if not corrected, could adversely affect the continued safe operation and landing of the aeroplane.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the affected spoiler PCUs.

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD was issued to extend the applicability to include additional aeroplane serial numbers and also modify the Corrective Actions to specifically mandate section 3.B of the [Bombardier Service Bulletin] SB 84-27-64, Revision A.

    Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD was issued to correct the SB referenced in the Background section. SB 84-27-64, Revision A should have been referenced in lieu of SB 84-27-63, Revision A.

    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-2015-8434.

    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

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 84-27-64, Revision A, dated July 26, 2016. This service information describes procedures for replacement of affected spoiler PCU manifolds.

    Parker-Hannifin Corporation has issued Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2016. This service bulletin identifies affected spoiler PCUs.

    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 82 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
  • Remove and replace affected PCUs 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $10,000 $10,170 $833,940
    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): 2017-19-27 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19057; Docket No. FAA-2015-8434; Product Identifier 2015-NM-082-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 1, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 4001, and 4003 through 4527 inclusive, equipped with spoiler power control unit (PCU) part numbers (P/Ns) 390700-1007 and -1009 and that have any spoiler PCU serial number identified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD.

    (1) S/Ns 0474 through 1321 inclusive;

    (2) S/Ns identified in section “4. Appendix” of Parker Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2016; and

    (3) S/Ns 1394 through 1876 inclusive, without suffix “A.”

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of cracking on two test spoiler PCU manifolds during testing by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the spoiler PCUs that could lead to the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Removal/Replacement

    Within 12,000 flight hours or 72 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Remove and replace the affected spoiler PCUs in accordance with paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, Revision A, dated July 26, 2016.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been done, no person may install on any airplane, a spoiler PCU, part number 390700-1007 and -1009, with:

    (1) S/Ns 0474 through 1321 inclusive; or

    (2) S/Ns identified in section “4. Appendix” of Parker Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2016; or

    (3) S/Ns 1394 through 1876 inclusive, without suffix “A.”

    (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 84-27-64, dated July 15, 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-2015-07R2, dated December 14, 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-2015-8434.

    (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)(5) of this AD.

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, Revision A, dated July 26, 2016.

    (ii) Parker Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2016.

    (3) For Bombardier, Inc., service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

    (4) For Parker-Hannifin Corporation service information identified in this AD, contact Parker Aerospace, 14300 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA, 92618; telephone 949-833-3000; fax 949-809-8646; Internet http://www.parker.com.

    (5) 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.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 14, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20213 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0248; Product Identifier 2016-NM-088-AD; Amendment 39-19054; AD 2017-19-24] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-26-10, which applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2014-26-10 required revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This new AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 1, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 1, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of February 25, 2015 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015).

    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-2017-0248.

    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-2017-0248; 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 2014-26-10, Amendment 39-18061 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015) (“AD 2014-26-10”). AD 2014-26-10 applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2017 (82 FR 17770). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. The NPRM also proposed to remove airplanes from the applicability. We are issuing this AD to mitigate the risks associated with aging effects of airplane systems. Such aging effects could change the characteristics of the systems leading to an increased potential for failure, which could result in failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity or reduced controllability 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 AD 2016-0093, dated May 13, 2016 (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:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes are currently defined and published in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The airworthiness limitations applicable to the System Equipment Maintenance Requirements, which are approved by [European Aviation Safety Agency] EASA, are specified in ALS Part 4.

    The instructions contained in the ALS Part 4 have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    Previously, EASA issued AD 2013-0146 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-26-10] to require accomplishment of all maintenance actions as described in ALS Part 4 at Revision 01. The new ALS Part 4 Revision 03 (hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this AD) includes new and/or more restrictive requirements. ALS Part 4 Revision 03, issue 02, has been released to include editorial changes.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0146, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.

    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-2017-0248.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Camp Systems International, Daniel Systems Inc., and United Airlines supported the NPRM.

    Request To Incorporate Current ALS Revision

    American Airlines (AAL) asked that a provision be incorporated into the proposed AD to approve use of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR)”, Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017 (“ALS Part 4, Revision 05”), as an additional means of compliance with the maintenance or inspection program. AAL stated that ALS Part 4, Revision 05 is the latest revision level for ALS Part 4, and approving it would potentially alleviate a future alternative method of compliance (AMOC) request.

    We acknowledge the commenter's concern. We have issued global AMOCs to AD 2014-26-10, which allow all operators of U.S.-registered airplanes to use Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR)”, Revision 04, dated July 6, 2016, and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR)”, Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017. These AMOCs are included in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, which states that AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-26-10 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD. In addition, these AMOCs are also applicable to the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Therefore, we have added paragraph (k)(1)(iii) to this AD to specify the previous AMOCs that are approved for the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD.

    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 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 AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03 at Issue 02, dated January 22, 2016. This service information describes preventive maintenance requirements and includes updated inspections and intervals to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. 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 1,032 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2014-26-10, and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-26-10 is $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour 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 $87,720, or $85 per product.

    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 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 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 under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-26-10, Amendment 39-18061 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015), and adding the following new AD: 2017-19-24 Airbus: Amendment 39-19054; Docket No. FAA-2017-0248; Product Identifier 2016-NM-088-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 1, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-26-10, Amendment 39-18061 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015) (“AD 2014-26-10”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD; certificated in any category; with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 21, 2015.

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

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

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

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

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to mitigate the risks associated with aging effects of airplane systems. Such aging effects could change the characteristics of the systems leading to an increased potential for failure, which could result in failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity or reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Requirement: Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With New Reference To Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-26-10, with new reference to terminating action. Within 30 days after February 25, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-26-10): Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, “Aging Systems Maintenance,” Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012. The initial compliance time for doing the actions is at the applicable time specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, “Aging Systems Maintenance,” Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012; or within 2 weeks after revising the maintenance or inspection program; whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (h) Retained Requirement: No Alternative Actions or Intervals, With New Paragraph Reference

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-26-10, with a new paragraph reference. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, after accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (i) New Requirement: Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03 at Issue 02, dated January 22, 2016. The initial compliance time for doing the actions is at the applicable time specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03 at Issue 02, dated January 22, 2016; or within 2 weeks after revising the maintenance or inspection program; whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) New Provision: No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the action required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been done, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, 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 ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149. 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 2014-26-10 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (iii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-26-10, which are included in the AMOC letters specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(iii)(A) and (k)(1)(iii)(B), are approved as AMOCs for the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (A) AMOC letter ANM-116-17-002R1, dated November 14, 2016.

    (B) AMOC letter ANM-116-17-323, dated June 12, 2017.

    (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 EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0093, dated May 13, 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-2017-0248.

    (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. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (m) 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 November 1, 2017.

    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03 at Issue 02, dated January 22, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 25, 2015 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015).

    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, “Aging Systems Maintenance,” Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012. The revision level of this document is identified on only the title page and in the Record of Revisions. The revision date is not identified on the title page of this document.

    (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 September 14, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20113 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0498; Product Identifier 2016-NM-175-AD; Amendment 39-19053; AD 2017-19-23] 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) 2015-15-10, which applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2015-15-10 required repetitive inspections of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA) for damage, and replacement if necessary; and replacement of the THSA after reaching a certain life limit. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of certain THSAs, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by the establishment of an additional life limit for the THSA, based on flight cycles. In addition, the THSA manufacturer has issued service information which, when accomplished, increases the life limit of the THSA. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 1, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 1, 2017.

    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-2017-0498.

    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-2017-0498; 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 2015-15-10, Amendment 39-18219 (80 FR 43928, July 24, 2015) (“AD 2015-15-10”). AD 2015-15-10 applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25542). The NPRM was prompted by the establishment of an additional life limit for the THSA, based on flight cycles. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections of certain THSAs, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear of the THSA, which could reduce the remaining life of the THSA, possibly resulting in premature failure and consequent reduced controllability 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 2016-0184, dated September 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In the frame of the A320 Extended Service Goal (ESG) project and the study on the Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA), a sampling programme of in-service units was performed and several cases of wear at different THSA levels were reported.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, would reduce the remaining life of the THSA, possibly resulting in premature failure and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-27-1227 to provide THSA inspection instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0011 (later revised) [which corresponds to AD 2015-15-10] to require repetitive inspections of the THSA [and related investigative and corrective actions] and to introduce a life limit for the THSA, based on flight hours (FH).

    Since EASA AD 2014-0011R1 was issued, an additional life limitation has been established, based on flight cycles (FC). Furthermore, United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems (UTAS), the THSA manufacturer, issued an SB which, after accomplishment on THSA, increases the life limit of the THSA.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0011R1, which is superseded, and introduces an additional FC life limit for the affected THSA. This [EASA] AD also provides a revised life limit for the THSA after UTAS SB accomplishment on that THSA.

    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-2017-0498.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and United Airlines expressed their support for the NPRM.

    Changes Made to This AD

    The NPRM specified that a THSA that had been repaired in-shop as specified in UTAS Component Maintenance Manual 27-44-51 would be an equivalent method of compliance for the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD. We have revised paragraph (m) of this AD to specify that a THSA that has been repaired in-shop using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA), is acceptable for compliance with the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD. We have also added Note 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD to reference UTAS Component Maintenance Manual 27-44-51 as an additional source of guidance for the in-shop repair of the THSA.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered 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 minor changes:

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections for wear of the THSA, and related investigative and 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 1,182 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 Inspections 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 per inspection cycle $0 $510 per inspection cycle $602,820 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the spectrometric analysis of the oil drained from the THSA gearbox. We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements or overhauls 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 or overhauls:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement of THSA (retained from AD 2015-15-10) 11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 $240,000 $240,935 Overhaul of THSA (new action) 66 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,610 115,000 120,610
    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) 2015-15-10, Amendment 39-18219 (80 FR 43928, July 24, 2015), and adding the following new AD: 2017-19-23 Airbus: Amendment 39-19053; Docket No. FAA-2017-0498; Product Identifier 2016-NM-175-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 1, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-15-10, Amendment 39-18219 (80 FR 43928, July 24, 2015) (“AD 2015-15-10”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified 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 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of wear at different levels in the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear of the THSA, which could reduce the remaining life of the THSA, possibly resulting in premature failure and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Serviceable THSA Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable THSA is a THSA that does not exceed the life limits as identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD.

    Table 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (j) of This AD—THSA Life Limits Configuration, based on service bulletin (SB) embodiment Compliance time (whichever occurs first) THSA on which United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems (UTAS) SB 47145-27-19 has not been embodied Before exceeding 67,500 flight hours (FH) since first installation on an airplane, or before exceeding 48,000 flight cycles (FC) since first installation on an airplane. THSA on which UTAS SB 47145-27-19 has been embodied Before exceeding 52,500 FH after embodiment of UTAS SB 47145-27-19 on an airplane, without exceeding 120,000 FH since first installation on an airplane; or before exceeding 27,000 FC after embodiment of UTAS SB 47145-27-19 on an airplane, without exceeding 75,000 FC since first installation on an airplane. (h) Repetitive Inspection and Related Investigative Actions

    For any airplane on which UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19 has not been embodied: Before the THSA exceeds 48,000 flight hours or 30,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since first installation on an airplane, do a special detailed inspection of the THSA and do all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016. Do all applicable related investigative actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.

    (i) Corrective Action

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any finding as described in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016, is identified: At the applicable time (depending on the applicable finding) specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016, replace the THSA with a serviceable THSA, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016.

    (j) THSA Replacement

    Within the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD, replace each THSA with a serviceable THSA, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016.

    (k) Replacement of a THSA: Not Terminating Action

    Replacement of a THSA on an airplane, as required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, unless the THSA has been overhauled as specified in UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19 (i.e., post-service bulletin).

    (l) Optional Terminating Action: Overhaul of THSA

    Accomplishment of a modification of an airplane by installing a THSA that has been overhauled as specified in UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19 constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that, following modification, no THSA is reinstalled on the airplane unless it has been overhauled as specified in UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19.

    (m) Replacement THSA Equivalency

    As of the effective date of this AD: A THSA that has been repaired in-shop is acceptable for compliance with the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that repair was done 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).

    Note 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD: Guidance for THSA repair in-shop can be found in UTAS Component Maintenance Manual 27-44-51.

    (n) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD: Do not install on any airplane a THSA unless it is a serviceable THSA as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (o) Credit for Previous Actions

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

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, dated July 1, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 01, dated October 7, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2015-15-10.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 02, dated February 2, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (p) 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 (q)(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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA 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.

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0184, dated September 13, 3016, 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-2017-0498.

    (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 (r)(3) and (r)(4) of this AD.

    (r) 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 A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Airbus 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.

    (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 September 14, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20567 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0813; Product Identifier 2017-NM-109-AD; Amendment 39-19059; AD 2017-20-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-13-05, which applied to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. AD 2017-13-05 required an inspection, corrective actions if necessary, lubrication of the ball-nut, modification of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA), and additional work for previously modified airplanes. For certain airplanes, AD 2017-13-05 required installation of an electronic harness, terminating actions, and a ball-screw assembly inspection. This AD clarifies the formatting of a figure in the published version of AD 2017-13-05. This AD was prompted by reports indicating that affected parties misinterpreted the intent of a figure as formatted in the published version of AD 2017-13-05, which could result in a negative effect on compliance. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 12, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 28, 2017 (82 FR 34251, July 24, 2017).

    We must receive comments on this AD by November 13, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For Airbus 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-2017-0813.

    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-2017-0813; 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

    On June 15, 2017, we issued AD 2017-13-05, Amendment 39-18935 (82 FR 34251, July 24, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-05”), which applied to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. AD 2017-13-05 was prompted by the need for a modification that automatically detects failure of the ball-screw assembly. AD 2017-13-05 required an inspection, corrective actions if necessary, lubrication of the ball-nut, modification of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA), and additional work for previously modified airplanes. For certain airplanes, AD 2017-13-05 required installation of an electronic harness, terminating actions, and a ball-screw assembly inspection. We issued AD 2017-13-05 to detect and correct wear on the THSA, possibly resulting in damage to the ball-screw and fail-safe nut, which could jam the THSA and result in reduced control of the airplane.

    Since we issued AD 2017-13-05, we have received reports indicating that affected parties could misinterpret the identity of applicable service information to use for the modification, due to the formatting of figure 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i) in the published version of AD 2017-13-05. Since the published figure could result in a negative effect on compliance, we have determined that clarification of the formatting of the published figure is necessary.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0219, dated September 29, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330 and Model A340 series airplanes. (Model A330-223F and A330-243F airplanes were removed from AD 2017-13-05 to correspond with the MCAI.) The EASA AD is referenced in AD 2017-13-05. EASA has not revised its AD since the issuance of AD 2017-13-05.

    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-2017-0813.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information. The service bulletins having the same document number (but different revision levels) are distinct because each revision contains unique editorial changes.

    The following service information describes procedures for doing repetitive inspections for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths of the ball-screw assembly of the THSA. These service bulletins are distinct because they apply to different airplane models.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3102, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4107, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016.

    The following service information describes procedures for installing two electrical detection devices, also called CSPs, on the lower attachment secondary load path of the THSA, and modifying the THSA. These service bulletins are distinct because they apply to different airplane models equipped with THSAs having different part numbers.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, Revision 02, dated January 18, 2010.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3143, Revision 01, dated July 10, 2012.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, Revision 02, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2010.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4143, dated February 21, 2012.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5030, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated November 20, 2009.

    The following service information describes procedures for installing electrical wiring harnesses and brackets to connect the secondary nut detection device to the monitoring systems. These service bulletins are distinct because they apply to different airplane models.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 04, dated July 16, 2010.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 05, dated November 7, 2011.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 07, dated January 13, 2017.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 03, dated July 16, 2010.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2013.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-5008, Revision 07, dated February 8, 2013.

    The following service information describes system equipment maintenance requirements (SEMR) that refer to preventative maintenance requirements found necessary to comply with safety objectives. These documents are distinct because they apply to different airplane models.

    • Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.

    • Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.

    • Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015, describes CMRs that are system-related periodic tasks established during type certification.

    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 another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    We are superseding AD 2017-13-05 to clarify the formatting of a figure in the regulatory text of the published AD. No other changes have been made to AD 2017-13-05. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary.

    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-2017-0813; Product Identifier 2017-NM-109-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 we receive about this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 33 airplanes of U.S. registry. This AD adds no new economic burden to AD 2017-13-05.

    We estimate that it takes about 68 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $17,481 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $764,808, or $23,260 per product.

    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) 2017-13-05, Amendment 39-18935 (82 FR 34251, July 24, 2017), and adding the following new AD: 2017-20-02 Airbus: Amendment 39-19059; Docket No. FAA-2017-0813; Product Identifier 2017-NM-109-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 12, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-13-05, Amendment 39-18935 (82 FR 34251, July 24, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-05”).

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the need for a modification that automatically detects failure of the ball-screw assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA), possibly resulting in damage to the ball-screw and fail-safe nut, which could jam the THSA and result in reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Actions for Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) Fault Messages, With Revised FAA Contact Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2017-13-05, with revised FAA contact information. For airplanes other than those identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (q) of this AD: If, during any flight, one of the “PRIM X PITCH FAULT” or “STAB CTL FAULT” messages is displayed on the ECAM associated with the “PITCH TRIM ACTR (1CS)” maintenance message, before further flight after each time the message is displayed on the ECAM, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Do the applicable detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path; check the checkable shear pins (CSP), if installed; and do all applicable corrective actions; as specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (i) For Model A330 series airplanes: Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3102, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016, except as required by paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

    (ii) For Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4107, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016, except as required by paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

    (iii) For Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: Do the actions 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).

    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this AD: Guidance for the inspection of the ball-screw assembly can be found in Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, of the Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015.

    (2) Lubricate the THSA ball-nut in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015 (for Model A330 series airplanes).

    (ii) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).

    (iii) Task 274000-B0003-1-C, Lubrication of THS Actuator ball-screw nut, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015 (for Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes).

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-C ER27SE17.010 (h) Retained Installation of CSP and Electrical Harness, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. For all airplanes, except Group 2 airplanes specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (q) of this AD, and except for airplanes identified in paragraphs (i), (j), and (n)(2) of this AD: Within 12 months after August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), modify the airplane by installing a CSP on the THSA and an additional electrical harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, as applicable to the part number of the THSA installed on the airplane, except as provided by paragraph (n)(2) of this AD.

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-C ER27SE17.011 (i) Retained “Additional Work” on Previously Modified Airplanes, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. For airplanes that have already been modified (installation of CSP on the THSA and electrical harness) before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of any previous revision of an Airbus service bulletin specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, as applicable: Within 12 months after August 28, 2017, do the “Additional Work” specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.

    (j) Retained Installation of Electrical Harness on Airplanes Equipped with a CSP, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. For airplanes having one of the THSAs installed with a part number listed in figure 3 to paragraph (j) of this AD, and that have been modified by installing a CSP on the THSA as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 12 months after August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), inspect to determine if the electrical harness identified in the applicable Airbus service information specified in figure 3 to paragraph (j) of this AD is installed on the airplane, and, if not installed, modify the airplane by installing an electrical harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information specified in figure 3 to paragraph (j) of this AD, as applicable to the part number of the THSA installed on the airplane. Airplanes having one of the THSAs installed with a part number listed in figure 3 to paragraph (j) of this AD already have the CSP installed on the THSA, and only the electrical harness must be installed on the airplane.

    ER27SE17.012 (k) Retained Provisions for Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections of Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (k) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. Accomplishment of a modification before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), using the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007; or Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 04, dated July 16, 2010; or Revision 05, dated November 7, 2011; or Revision 06, dated November 15, 2013; terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD. Modification of an airplane as specified by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD or the additional work specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (1) Task 274400-00001-1-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and check the gap at the secondary nut trunnion, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.

    (2) Task 274400-00001-2-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and check the CSPs, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.

    (3) Task 274400-00001-3-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and check the CSPs, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.

    (4) Task 274400-00001-4-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and check the CSPs, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.

    (l) Retained Provisions for Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections of Airbus Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (l) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. Accomplishment of a modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4143, dated February 21, 2012; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 03, dated July 16, 2010; terminates the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for modified Airbus Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes only. Modification of an airplane as specified in this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, or the additional work specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (m) Retained Provisions for Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections of Airbus Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (m) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. Accomplishment of a modification before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), using the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007; or Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 03, dated July 16, 2010; terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this AD. Modification of an airplane as specified in this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, or the additional work specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (1) Task 274400-00001-1-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and gap check at the secondary nut trunnion, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.

    (2) Task 274400-00001-2-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and CSP check, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.

    (3) Task 274400-00001-3-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and CSP check, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.

    (4) Task 274400-00001-4-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and CSP check, of A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.

    (n) Retained Exceptions to the Actions in Certain Service Information and Paragraph (h) of This AD, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exceptions of paragraph (n) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes.

    (1) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3102, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016 (for Model A330 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4107, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016 (for Model A340 series airplanes); specifies to contact Airbus for a damage assessment: Before further flight, accomplish the required actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s)(2) of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes that already had the electrical harness installed during production using Airbus Modifications 52269 and 56056 for Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes and Airbus Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, and using Airbus Modifications 52191 and 56058 for Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: Only the CSP must be installed on the THSA in accordance with applicable Airbus service bulletins and within the compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (o) Retained Provisions for Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections for Airplanes on Which Actions Required by Paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of This AD Are Done, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (o) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating action for that airplane for the applicable actions identified in paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(4) of this AD.

    (1) For all airplanes: The actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) For Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015.

    (3) For Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes: The ALS tasks identified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD.

    (4) For Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: The ALS tasks identified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this AD.

    (p) Retained Ball-screw Assembly Inspection for Certain Airplanes, With Revised FAA Contact Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (p) of AD 2017-13-05, with revised FAA contact information. For Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes that are in post-Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-5008, at Revision 06 or earlier, configuration: Before exceeding the threshold or interval, as applicable, of Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015, or within 3 months after August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), whichever occurs later, accomplish Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015; and do all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Repeat Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015.

    (q) Retained Parts Installation Prohibitions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (1) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes.

    (1) For all airplanes except Group 2 airplanes as identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (q) of this AD: After modification of the airplane as required by paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, as applicable, no person may install any THSA having part number (P/N) 47172-300, P/N 47147-500, P/N 47175-200, or P/N 47175-300.

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes, as identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (q) of this AD: As of August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), no person may install on any Group 2 airplane any THSA having P/N 47172-300, P/N 47147-500, P/N 47175-200, or P/N 47175-300.

    (r) Retained Credit for Previous Actions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (r) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes.

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (r)(1)(i) through (r)(1)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 03, dated September 9, 2011 (for Model A330 series airplanes).

    (ii) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013 (for Model A330 series airplanes).

    (iii) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated October 12, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).

    (iv) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 03, dated November 15, 2012 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the electrical harness installation required by paragraph (h) of this AD and the inspection and electrical harness installation required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 06, dated November 15, 2013.

    (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 manager of the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (t)(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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (t) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0219, dated September 29, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0813.

    (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.

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

    (u) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 34251, July 24, 2017).

    (i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.

    (ii) Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015.

    (iii) Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3102, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007.

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, Revision 02, dated January 18, 2010.

    (viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3143, Revision 01, dated July 10, 2012.

    (ix) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 04, dated July 16, 2010.

    (x) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 05, dated November 7, 2011.

    (xi) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 07, dated January 13, 2017.

    (xii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4107, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016.

    (xiii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007.

    (xiv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007.

    (xv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, Revision 02, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2010.

    (xvi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4143, dated February 21, 2012.

    (xvii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5030, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated November 20, 2009.

    (xviii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 03, dated July 16, 2010.

    (xix) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2013.

    (xx) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-5008, Revision 07, dated February 8, 2013.

    (4) 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.

    (5) 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.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 14, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20559 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0183; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-4] Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Louisiana Towns; Leesville, LA; and Patterson, LA 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 Leesville City Airport, Leesville, LA, and Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, Patterson, LA. Airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Leesville non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and the Patterson radio beacon (RBN), and cancellation of NDB and RBN approaches, and for the safe management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, this action amends the geographic coordinates at Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    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 Leesville City Airport, Leesville, LA and Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, Patterson, LA, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    History

    On April 10, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 17160) Docket No. FAA-2017-0183, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at:

    Leesville Airport, Leesville, LA, and Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, Patterson, LA, due to the decommissioning of the Leesville NBD and Patterson RBN.

    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Subsequent to publication, the FAA realized that it had inadvertently failed to include updates to the geographic coordinates for Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database in the NPRM. Those geographic coordinates are updated in this final rule.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, 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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B 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 at:

    Leesville Airport, Leesville, LA, to within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 6.5-mile radius) of Leesville Airport, and within 3.7 miles each side of the 360° bearing from the airport (modified from 3.6 miles from each side of the 345° bearing) extending from the 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 6.5-mile radius) to 12.3 miles (increased from 12.2 miles) north of the airport, and removing the segment within 2.5 miles each side of the 000° bearing of the Leesville NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.3 miles north of the airport; and

    Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, Patterson, LA, by removing the segment within 2.5 mile each side of the 233° bearing from the Patterson RBN extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.5 miles southwest of the airport. Additionally, the geographic coordinates for Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Leesville NBD and Patterson RBN, and cancellation of the navigation aid approaches at these airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, 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 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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW LA E5 Leesville, LA [Amended] Leesville Airport, LA (Lat. 31°10′06″ N., long. 93°20′33″ W.).

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Leesville Airport, and within 3.7 miles each side of the 360° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 12.3 miles north of the airport, excluding that airspace within the Fort Polk, LA, Class D airspace area, and excluding that airspace within restricted area R-3803A.

    ASW LA E5 Patterson, LA [Amended] Patterson, Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, LA (Lat. 29°42′34″ N., long. 91°20′20″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 19, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20591 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9481; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-18] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Midland, TX and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Odessa, TX and Midland, TX 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 Midland International Air and Space Port Airport (formerly Midland International Airport), Midland, TX, due to the closing of Mabee Ranch Airport, decommissioning of the Mabee non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of NDB approaches at Mabee Ranch Airport. Additionally, this action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX and Midland Airpark, Midland, TX, to accommodate special instrument approach procedures developed at these airports to enhance the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. Also, an editorial change is made to the Class E surface area airspace legal description replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement. In addition, the airport name is changed to Midland International Air and Space Port Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/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 Midland International Air Space Port Airport by removing Mabee Ranch Airport, Midland, TX, due to closing of the airport; and establishes Class E airspace at Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX, and Midland Airpark, Midland, TX, to support special instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

    History

    On May 26, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 24266) Docket No. FAA-2016-9481, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, Midland, TX; and establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX, and Midland Airpark, Midland, TX. 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 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, 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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B 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 7.1-mile radius (from a 17.4-mile radius) of Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, Midland, TX, and also amends the airport name from Midland International Airport to Midland International Air and Space Port Airport in this and other associated Class E airspace areas. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the closing of Mabee Ranch Airport, and decommissioning and cancellation of the Mabee NDB and NDB approaches.

    This action also established Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of both Midland Airpark, Midland, TX and Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX, to accommodate special instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

    Additionally, this action makes an editorial change in the legal description by replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class E surface area airspace.

    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this 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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas. ASW TX E2 Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, TX [Amended] Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, TX (Lat. 31°56′33″ N., long. 102°12′07″ W.)

    Within a 5-mile radius of Midland International Air and Space Port Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW TX E5 Midland, TX [Amended] Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, TX (Lat. 31°56′33″ N., long. 102°12′07″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Midland International Air and Space Port Airport.

    ASW TX E5 Midland, TX [New] Midland Airpark, TX (Lat. 32°02′12″ N., long. 102°06′05″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Midland Airpark.

    ASW TX E5 Odessa, TX [New] Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, TX (Lat. 31°55′17″ N., long. 102°23′14″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 19, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20592 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 229 and 249 [Release No. 33-10415; 34-81673; File No. S7-07-13] Commission Guidance on Pay Ratio Disclosure AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Interpretation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing interpretive guidance to assist registrants in preparation of their pay ratio disclosures required by Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: September 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fieldsend, Special Counsel, or Steven G. Hearne, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3430, in the Division of Corporation Finance; 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    In 2015, the Commission adopted a rule 1 to implement the pay ratio disclosure requirement 2 mandated by Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.3 In doing so, the Commission stated its belief that, in order for the data points provided by the rule to be of use to investors, the pay ratio rule “should be designed to allow shareholders to better understand and assess a particular registrant's compensation practices and pay ratio disclosures rather than to facilitate a comparison of this information from one registrant to another.” 4 Consistent with this view, the Commission stated that it sought to provide flexibility in a manner that would “reduce costs and burdens for registrants while preserving what we perceive to be the purpose and intended benefits” of the statutorily mandated disclosure.5 Under the final rule, registrants must provide pay ratio disclosure for the first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2017, which means that registrants will begin making pay ratio disclosures in early 2018.

    1Pay Ratio Disclosure, Release No. 33-9877 (Aug. 5, 2015) [80 FR 50103 (Aug. 18, 2015)] (“Pay Ratio Release”).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78n(i).

    3 Public Law 111-203, sec. 953(b), 124 Stat. 1376, 1904 (2010), as amended by Public Law 112-106, sec. 102(a)(3), 126 Stat. 306, 309 (2012).

    4 Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at 50106.

    5Id. at 50107.

    In light of the approaching compliance date and concerns raised about the implementation of the disclosure requirement,6 this release provides additional guidance to assist registrants in their compliance efforts. In addition, the Commission staff is publishing guidance about the use of statistical sampling to assist registrants in determining their median employee for purposes of the pay ratio disclosure.7

    6See, e.g., letters from Business Roundtable (Mar. 23, 2017) (“BRT”), Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (Mar. 23, 2017) (“Davis Polk”), Financial Services Roundtable (Mar. 23, 2017) (“FSR”), The Insurance Coalition (Mar. 23, 2017) (“Insurance Coalition”), National Association of Manufacturers (Mar. 23, 2017) (“NAM”), and Society for Corporate Governance (Mar. 24, 2017) (“SCG”) available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/pay-ratio-statement/payratiostatement.htm.

    7See Division of Corporation Finance Guidance on Calculation of Pay Ratio Disclosure, September 21, 2017, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2017/33-10415.pdf.

    II. Commission Guidance A. Use of Reasonable Estimates, Assumptions, and Methodologies and Statistical Sampling

    The pay ratio rule affords significant flexibility to registrants in determining appropriate methodologies to identify the median employee and calculating the median employee's annual total compensation.8 Required disclosure may be based on a registrant's reasonable belief; use of reasonable estimates, assumptions, and methodologies; and reasonable efforts to prepare the disclosures.9 Specifically, the rule permits registrants to use reasonable estimates to identify the median employee, including by using statistical sampling and a consistently applied compensation measure (such as payroll or tax records).10 The rule also allows registrants to use reasonable estimates in calculating the annual total compensation or any elements of annual total compensation for employees.11 The rule further provides that if a registrant changes its methodology or its material assumptions, adjustments, or estimates, and the effects are significant, the registrant must briefly describe the change and the reasons for the change.12

    8See Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at 50135—50138.

    9See, e.g., Instruction 2 and Instruction 4 to Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.402(u)).

    10See Instruction 4 to Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K.

    11Id.

    12Id.

    In light of the use of estimates, assumptions, adjustments, and statistical sampling permitted by the rule, pay ratio disclosures may involve a degree of imprecision. This has led some commenters to express concerns about compliance uncertainty and potential liability.13 In our view, if a registrant uses reasonable estimates, assumptions or methodologies, the pay ratio and related disclosure that results from such use would not provide the basis for Commission enforcement action unless the disclosure was made or reaffirmed without a reasonable basis or was provided other than in good faith.

    13See, e.g., letters from BRT, Davis Polk, and NAM.

    B. Use of Internal Records

    Item 402(u) requires a registrant to disclose the median of the annual total compensation of all its employees excluding its principal executive officer.14 We are providing guidance as to the use of existing internal records, such as tax or payroll records, to make this determination.

    14 17 CFR 229.402(u)(1).

    1. Non-U.S. Employees

    The final rule defines the term “employee” to include U.S. employees and employees located in a jurisdiction outside the United States (“non-U.S. employees”). In the Pay Ratio Release, we acknowledged that the inclusion of non-U.S. employees would raise compliance costs for multinational companies.15 To address concerns about compliance costs, the rule permits registrants to exempt non-U.S. employees where these employees account for 5% or less of the registrant's total U.S. and non-U.S. employees, with certain limitations.16 We are clarifying that a registrant may use appropriate existing internal records, such as tax or payroll records, in determining whether the 5% de minimis exemption is available.17

    15See Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at 50122—50133.

    16 17 CFR 229.402(u)(4)(ii). See also Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at 50124-50125 (noting that registrants using the de minimis exemption are required to provide certain disclosures).

    17See, e.g., Instruction 1 to Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.402(u)) and Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at 50119—50120 (indicating that determination of the median employee may be made on any date within the last three months of the registrant's last completed fiscal year).

    2. Median Employee

    We also believe that the use of existing internal records may, in many circumstances, be appropriate in identifying a registrant's median employee. Instruction 4 to Item 402(u) permits a registrant to identify its median employee using a consistently applied compensation measure, such as information derived from the registrant's tax or payroll records. We are clarifying that a registrant may use internal records that reasonably reflect annual compensation to identify the median employee, even if those records do not include every element of compensation, such as equity awards widely distributed to employees.

    We recognize that, when calculating total compensation in accordance with Item 402(c)(2)(x) for the identified median employee that the registrant identified using a consistently applied compensation measure based on internal records, the registrant may determine that there are anomalous characteristics of the identified median employee's compensation that have a significant higher or lower impact on the pay ratio. The Commission discussed this issue in the adopting release specifically and noted that, in such a circumstance, instead of concluding that the consistently applied compensation measure the registrant used was unsuitable to identify its median employee, the registrant may substitute another employee with substantially similar compensation to the original identified median employee based on the compensation measure it used to select the median employee.18

    18See Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at 50137-50138 (providing that the registrant must disclose the substitution as part of its brief description of the methodology it used to identify the median employee).

    C. Independent Contractors

    For purposes of Item 402(u), the term “employee” or “employee of the registrant” is defined as “an individual employed by the registrant or any of its consolidated subsidiaries.” 19 Item 402(u)(3) excludes from the definition those workers who are employed, and whose compensation is determined, by an unaffiliated third party but who provide services to the registrant or its consolidated subsidiaries as independent contractors or “leased” workers.20 In the Pay Ratio Release, the Commission indicated that excluding these workers is appropriate, because registrants generally do not control the level of compensation that these workers are paid.21

    19 17 CFR 229.402(u)(3).

    20Id.

    21See Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at Section 50165-50166.

    Some commenters have expressed concerns about the application of the rule's definition of “employee.” 22 Because registrants already make determinations as to whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor in other legal and regulatory contexts, such as for employment law or tax purposes, some commenters suggested that the Commission should allow registrants to use widely recognized tests to determine who is an “employee” for purposes of the rule.23 Such a test might, for example, be drawn from guidance published by the Internal Revenue Service with respect to independent contractors.24

    22See, e.g., letters from Davis Polk, FSR, SCG, and Insurance Coalition.

    23See, e.g., letters from Davis Polk and Insurance Coalition.

    24See, e.g., Publication 15-A Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide (2017).

    Item 402(u)(3) makes clear that an “employee” is an individual employed by the registrant.25 The provision in Item 402(u)(3) indicating that the definition of “employee” does not include workers who are employed, and whose compensation is determined, by an unaffiliated third party describes one category of workers that is expressly excluded from the definition of “employee” under the rule. The provision was not intended to serve as an exclusive basis for determining whether a worker is an employee of the registrant. Accordingly, we believe it would be consistent with Item 402(u) for a registrant to apply a widely recognized test under another area of law that the registrant otherwise uses to determine whether its workers are employees.26

    25 17 CFR 229.402(u)(3).

    26 Because we believe most widely recognized tests likely will consider how compensation is determined as a factor in identifying a registrant's employees, we believe these tests generally would provide a reasonable means of complying with Item 402(u). See, e.g., note 24. The description of the methodology required by Instruction 4 of Item 402(u) requires a registrant to include an explanation of any material assumptions and adjustments used.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20632 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM16-20-000; Order No. 837] Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 (Remedial Action Schemes) submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The purpose of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system.

    DATES:

    This rule will become effective November 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards and Security, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8718, [email protected] Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8502, [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Order No. 837 Final Rule (Issued September 20, 2017)

    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 (Remedial Action Schemes).1 The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 for approval. The purpose of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system. In addition, the Commission approves the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. The Commission also approves the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 as well as NERC's request to withdraw proposed Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1, which are now pending before the Commission.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824o.

    I. Background A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.2 Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or by the Commission independently.3 In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to section 215 of the FPA.4

    2Id. 824o(c), (d).

    3Id. 824o(e).

    4North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 (ERO Certification Order), order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), order on compliance, 118 FERC ¶ 61,190, order on reh'g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

    B. Order No. 693

    3. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Data and Documentation) and PRC-016-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation).5 Reliability Standard PRC-015-1 requires transmission owners, generator owners, and distribution providers to maintain a listing; retain evidence of review; and provide documentation of existing, new or functionally modified special protection systems.6 Reliability Standard PRC-016-1 requires transmission owners, generator owners, and distribution providers to provide the regional reliability organization with documentation, analyses and corrective action plans for misoperation of special protection systems.7

    5Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).

    6Id. PP 1529-1533.

    7Id. PP 1534-1540.

    4. In Order No. 693, the Commission determined that then-proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-0 was a “fill-in-the-blank” Reliability Standard because, while it would require regional reliability organizations to ensure that all special protection systems are properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated with other protection systems, NERC had not submitted any regional review procedures with the proposed Reliability Standard.8 Similarly, the Commission determined that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-013-0 was a “fill-in-the-blank” Reliability Standard because, although it was intended to ensure that all special protection systems are properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated with other protection systems by requiring the regional reliability organization to maintain a database of information on special protection systems, NERC had not filed any regional procedures for maintaining the databases.9 Further, the Commission determined that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-014-0 was a “fill-in-the-blank” Reliability Standard because, while it was proposed to ensure that special protection systems are properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated with other protection systems by requiring the regional reliability organization to assess and document the operation, coordination, and compliance with NERC Reliability Standards and effectiveness of special protection systems at least once every five years, NERC had not submitted any regional procedures for this assessment and documentation.10 The Commission stated that it would not approve or remand proposed Reliability Standards PRC-012-0, PRC-013-0 or PRC-014-0 until NERC submitted the additional necessary information to the Commission.11

    8Id. PP 1517-18, 1520. The Commission used the term “fill-in-the-blank” standards to refer to proposed Reliability Standards that required the regional reliability organizations to develop at a later date criteria for use by users, owners or operators within each region. Id. P 297.

    9Id. PP 1521, 1522, 1524.

    10Id. PP 1525, 1526, 1528.

    11Id. PP 1520, 1524, 1528.

    C. Remedial Action Schemes

    5. On June 23, 2016, the Commission approved NERC's revision to the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) that redefines special protection system to have the same definition as remedial action scheme, effective April 1, 2017.12 The NERC Glossary defines remedial action scheme to mean:

    12N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., Docket No. RD16-5-000 (June 23, 2016) (delegated letter order); NERC Glossary, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf.

    A scheme designed to detect predetermined System conditions and automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping load, or reconfiguring a System(s). [Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)] accomplish objectives such as:

    • Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability Standards;

    • Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability;

    • Maintain acceptable BES voltages;

    • Maintain acceptable BES power flows;

    • Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events.13

    13 NERC Glossary, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf; see also Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability Standards, Order No. 818, 153 FERC ¶ 61,228, at PP 24, 31 (2015).

    The revised remedial action scheme definition also identifies fourteen items that do not individually constitute a remedial action scheme.

    D. NERC Petition and Reliability Standard PRC-012-2

    6. On August 5, 2016, NERC submitted a petition seeking Commission approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.14 NERC contended that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.15 NERC explained that the intent of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is to supersede “pending” Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and to retire and replace currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1.16 NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 represents substantial improvements over these Reliability Standards because it streamlines and consolidates existing requirements; corrects the applicability of previously unapproved Reliability Standards; and implements a continent-wide remedial action scheme review program.17

    14 Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is not attached to this Final Rule. The Reliability Standard is available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM16-20-000 and is posted on NERC's Web site, http://www.nerc.com.

    15 NERC Petition at 2.

    16 NERC noted that it submitted “for completeness” revised versions of Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 in its petition to revise the definition of remedial action scheme, but NERC did not request Commission approval of the revised Reliability Standards in that proceeding. Id. at 1 n.5.

    17Id. at 12-13.

    7. NERC stated that, in the United States, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will apply to reliability coordinators, planning coordinators, and remedial action scheme-entities. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 defines remedial action scheme-entities to include each transmission owner, generation owner, or distribution provider that owns all or part of a remedial action scheme.

    8. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 includes nine requirements that combine all existing (both effective and “pending”) Reliability Standards mentioned above into a single, consolidated, continent-wide Reliability Standard to address all aspects of remedial action schemes.18 NERC explained that all of the requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-012-1 except R2 are now covered in Requirements R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R8 of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.19 NERC maintained that Reliability Standard PRC-012-1, Requirement R2 is “administrative in nature and does not contribute to reliability.” 20 NERC also stated that it established Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R9 to replace the mandate in Reliability Standard PRC-013-1 that responsible entities maintain a remedial action scheme database with pertinent technical information for each remedial action scheme.21 NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirements R4 and R6 cover the review and the mandate to take corrective action required by Reliability Standard PRC-014-1.22 NERC stated that it integrated the performance requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-015-1 into Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirements R1, R2, and R3.23 NERC also asserted that it integrated the performance requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-016-1 into Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirements R5, R6, and R7.24

    18Id. at 3.

    19Id. at 40.

    20Id. at 41.

    21Id. at 42.

    22Id.at 43.

    23Id. at 43-44.

    24Id. at 44-45.

    9. NERC explained how the nine Requirements in Reliability Standard PRC- 012-2 work together and with other Reliability Standards. According to NERC, Requirements R1, R2, and R3, together, establish a process for the reliability coordinator to review new or modified remedial action schemes.25 The reliability coordinator must complete the review before an entity places a new or functionally modified remedial action scheme into service.

    25Id. at 15-18.

    10. Requirement R4 requires the planning coordinator to perform a periodic evaluation of each remedial action scheme within its planning area, at least once every five years.26 The evaluation must determine, inter alia, whether each remedial action scheme: (1) Mitigates the system conditions or contingencies for which it was designed; and (2) avoids adverse interactions with other remedial action scheme and protection systems. Requirement R4, Part 4.1.3 footnote 1 defines a certain subset of remedial action schemes as “limited impact.” Requirement R4, Part 4.1.3 footnote 1 states: “A RAS designated as limited impact cannot, by inadvertent operation or failure to operate, cause or contribute to BES Cascading, uncontrolled separation, angular instability, voltage instability, voltage collapse, or unacceptably damped oscillations.” 27 Further, Requirement R4, Parts 4.1.3, 4.1.4, and 4.1.5 provide certain exceptions to “limited impact” remedial action schemes. For example, Part 4.1.5 states that:

    26Id. at 18-22.

    27Id. at 19 & n.44.

    Except for limited impact RAS, a single component failure in the RAS, when the RAS is intended to operate does not prevent the BES from meeting the same performance requirements (defined in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 or its successor) as those required for the events and conditions for which the RAS is designed.28

    28Id. at 19.

    NERC explained that Requirement R4 “does not supersede or modify [planning coordinator] responsibilities under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.” 29 NERC continued that even though Part 4.1.5 exempts “limited impact” remedial action schemes from certain aspects of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R4 does not exempt “limited impact” remedial actions schemes from meeting each of the performance requirements in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.30

    29Id. at 28.

    30Id. at 28-29.

    11. NERC stated that prior to development of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, two NERC Regions, the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) and the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC), used their own remedial action scheme classification regimes to identify remedial action schemes that would meet criteria similar to those for remedial action schemes described as “limited impact” in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.31 NERC continued that the standard drafting team identified the Local Area Protection Scheme (LAPS) classification in WECC and the Type III classification in NPCC as consistent with the “limited impact” designation.32 According to NERC, remedial action schemes implemented prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 that have gone through the regional review processes of WECC or NPCC and that are classified as either a LAPS by WECC or a Type III by NPCC would be considered a “limited impact” remedial action scheme for purposes of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.33

    31Id. at 25.

    32Id.at 25-26.

    33Id. at 26.

    12. Requirements R5, R6, and R7 pertain to the analysis of each remedial action scheme operation or misoperation.34 A remedial action scheme-entity must perform an analysis of each remedial action scheme operation or misoperation and provide the results to the reviewing reliability coordinator. Further, the remedial action scheme-entity must develop and submit a corrective action plan to the reviewing reliability coordinator after learning of a deficiency with its remedial action scheme, implement the corrective action plan, and update it as necessary. Requirement R8 requires periodic testing of remedial action scheme performance: Every six years for normal remedial action schemes and every 12 years for “limited impact” remedial action schemes.35 Requirement R9 requires the reliability coordinator to annually update its remedial action scheme database.36

    34Id. at 29-34.

    35Id. at 34-36.

    36Id. at 36-38.

    13. NERC proposed an implementation plan that includes an effective date for Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 that is the first day of the first calendar quarter that is thirty-six months after the date that the Commission approves the Reliability Standard. Concurrent with the effective date, the implementation plan calls for the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 and withdrawal of “pending” Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1.

    E. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    14. On January 19, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.37 The NOPR also proposed to clarify that, consistent with NERC's representation in its petition, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.38 In addition, the NOPR proposed to approve the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC.39 The NOPR further proposed to approve the withdrawal of “pending” Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1, as proposed by NERC.40

    37Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 82 FR 9702 (Jan. 19, 2017), 158 FERC ¶ 61,042 (2017) (NOPR).

    38 NOPR, 158 FERC ¶ 61,042 at P 16.

    39Id. P 14.

    40Id.

    15. In response to the NOPR, entities filed seven sets of comments. We address below the issues raised in the NOPR and comments. The Appendix to this Final Rule lists the entities that filed comments in response to the NOPR.

    II. Discussion

    16. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we hereby approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.41 Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 promotes efficiency and clarity by addressing all aspects of remedial action schemes in a single, continent-wide Reliability Standard. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 enhances reliability by assigning specific remedial action scheme responsibilities to appropriate functional entities. Further, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 improves reliability by establishing a centralized process to review new or modified remedial action schemes prior to implementation, by requiring periodic evaluations, tests, and operational analyses of each remedial action scheme, and by requiring an annual update of an area-wide remedial action scheme database. We determine that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 satisfies the relevant directives in Order No. 693 for the ERO to provide additional information regarding review procedures for remedial action schemes (then called special protection systems) and to establish continent-wide uniformity.42

    41 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).

    42 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at PP 297-298, 1517-1520.

    17. We also approve the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. In addition, we approve, upon the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, the withdrawal of pending Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 due to their consolidation with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.

    A. Impact of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 on Compliance With Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 NOPR

    18. The NOPR sought comments on its proposal to clarify that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not modify or supersede any system performance obligation under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. The NOPR also sought comments on the processes used to ensure LAPS or Type III remedial action schemes' compliance with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.

    Comments

    19. NERC, Joint ISOs, and the EEI support the Commission's proposal to approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 with a clarification that it does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.43 NERC states that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 merely adds design, implementation, and review requirements ensuring that remedial action schemes enhance reliability and do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks.44 NERC and Joint ISOs state that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 does not supersede or modify the system performance requirements of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 because responsible entities must still assume that all remedial action schemes operate correctly, guaranteeing a non-consequential load loss by less than 75 MW.45 Joint ISOs believe that no clarification to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is necessary; but if the Commission determines that some clarification is necessary, the Commission may confirm that under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, responsible entities can assume that all remedial action schemes operate as designed.46 EEI states that while it is unlikely that the exceptions in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 would be interpreted by industry as exempting any of the performance requirements in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, EEI is supportive of the proposed clarification since such clarification would remove any ambiguity.47

    43 NERC Comments at 4; Joint ISO Comments at 2; EEI Comments at 4.

    44 NERC Comments at 5.

    45Id. at 5; Joint ISO Comments at 2.

    46 Joint ISO Comments at 2.

    47 EEI Comments at 4.

    20. NESCOE contends that, absent confirmation that Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 allows responsible entities to assume that all remedial action schemes operate properly, a clarification that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 may be misinterpreted by entities, requiring actions that would increase material costs without benefit.48 NESCO states that reliability gains must be measured against the risk and cost associated with any standard.49

    48 NESCO Comments at 2.

    49Id.

    21. NERC states that LAPS in WECC and Type III remedial actions schemes in NPCC must be compliant with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 before and after the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.50 According to NERC, Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 does not distinguish between different types of remedial action schemes or exempt LAPS or Type III remedial action schemes from any of the performance requirements.51 NERC and Joint ISOs state that additional regional controls that maintain remedial action scheme compliance with the performance requirements of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 are in place.52

    50 NERC Comments at 5.

    51Id. at 6.

    52Id.; Joint ISO Comments at 3.

    22. EEI questions the relevancy of asking the industry to comment on WECC LAPS or NPCC Type III remedial action schemes reclassification as “limited impact” remedial action schemes.53 EEI contends that once the Commission approves Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, WECC and NPCC must be compliant regardless. EEI believes that insights into processes ensuring compliance with Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 are irrelevant.54

    53 EEI Comments at 5.

    54Id.

    Commission Determination

    23. We adopt our NOPR proposal and clarify that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. We agree with and, thus, adopt NERC's explanation:

    Nothing in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 or the designation of a RAS as “limited impact” exempts an entity from meeting its performance requirements under [Reliability Standard] TPL-001-4, including the requirement that Non-Consequential Load Loss may not exceed 75 MW for certain Category P1, P2, or P3 contingencies, as provided in Table 1 and footnote 12 of TPL-001-4.

    In performing the assessments required pursuant to Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, an entity must consider all RAS, whether designated as “limited impact” or not. While Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, Requirement R2, Part 2.7.1 recognizes that entities may use a RAS as a method for meeting the performance obligations of Table 1, TPL-001-4 does not distinguish between different types of RAS. As such, entities must satisfy the performance requirements of TPL-001-4 considering the actions of “limited impact” RAS and non-limited impact RAS alike.55

    55 NERC Comments at 5. In response to the requests by Joint ISOs and NESCOE for confirmation that Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 allows responsible entities to assume that all remedial action schemes operate properly, the Commission declines to interpret Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 in this proceeding. However, this Final Rule approving Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 in no way modifies the requirements of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 or the compliance obligations associated with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.

    This clarification should help entities avoid confusion regarding compliance obligations when implementing PRC-012-2.

    24. In addition, we accept NERC's assurance that LAPS in WECC and Type III remedial actions schemes in NPCC must be compliant with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 before and after the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.56

    56 We note that WECC's and NPCC's remedial action scheme criteria and associated regional terms found in the “Technical Justification” section of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 were not submitted for approval by NERC and as such are not part of this proceeding.

    B. Definition of “Limited Impact” Remedial Action Schemes NOPR

    25. The NOPR sought comment on whether NERC should define the term “limited impact” remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary.

    Comments

    26. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI contend that NERC should not define the term “limited impact” remedial action scheme in the NERC Glossary.57 NERC states that it typically develops terms in the NERC Glossary for one of two reasons: “(1) To establish a single meaning for a term or concept used across several different Reliability Standards or multiple times within a single Reliability Standard, or (2) to provide for a more readable standard by creating a shorthand reference to avoid unnecessary repetition.” 58 NERC contends that neither reason exists for “limited impact” remedial action schemes.59

    57 NERC Comments at 8; Joint ISO Comments at 3; EEI at 5.

    58 NERC Comments at 8.

    59Id.

    27. NERC and EEI maintain that remedial action schemes vary widely in complexity and impact on the bulk electric system.60 NERC and EEI explain that NERC should not define “limited impact” remedial action schemes because not all remedial action schemes impact the bulk electric system similarly and the diversity of remedial action schemes makes it difficult to establish a common definition for North America.61

    60 NERC Comments at 9; EEI Comments at 5.

    61Id.

    28. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI assert that other comprehensive lists may establish a baseline definition for “limited impact” remedial action schemes.62 Joint ISOs note that the performance criteria described in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement 4.1.3, footnote 1 provide an adequate level of guidance.63 MISO contends that NERC need not define “limited impact” remedial action scheme in the NERC Glossary.64

    62 NERC Comments at 9; Joint ISO Comments at 3; EEI Comments at 6.

    63 Joint ISO Comments at 3-4.

    64 MISO Comments at 6.

    29. Bonneville and ITC contend that NERC should define the term “limited impact” remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary.65 Bonneville states that the footnote in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 only reiterates the substantive requirements of “limited impact” remedial action schemes under Requirement R4.3.1 and does not clarify how “limited impact” remedial action schemes differ from normal remedial action schemes.66 Bonneville proposes the following definition for “limited impact” remedial action schemes:

    65 Bonneville Comments at 2; ITC Comments at 1.

    66 Bonneville Comments at 2.

    A remedial action scheme whose operation or misoperation only affects the local area defined by the RAS-entity that owns all of part of the remedial action scheme and does not affect the BES of any adjacent Transmission Owners, Transmission Operators, Generation Owners, or Generation Operators.67

    67Id.

    ITC also states that the Commission should issue a directive to NERC to define “limited impact” remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary.68 ITC states that doing so avoids confusion while ensuring consistency, facilitates the use of the term in other Reliability Standards, and enhances the overall usefulness of the NERC Glossary.69

    68 ITC Comments at 1.

    69Id. at 2.

    Commission Determination

    30. We determine not to require NERC to define “limited impact” remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary. We agree with NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI that a definition of “limited impact” remedial action schemes is unnecessary at this time given the diversity among the different types, functions, and placements of remedial action schemes across North America. In addition, only Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 uses the term “limited impact” remedial action schemes, thus eliminating one of the principal reasons for normally including terms in the NERC Glossary (i.e., to establish a single meaning for a term or concept used across several different Reliability Standards). Should this situation change, the Commission may reconsider this determination.

    C. Other Issues Comments

    31. MISO contends that the Commission should not approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 as proposed.70 MISO contends that oversight of remedial action schemes would be difficult for reliability coordinators and planning coordinators when remedial action schemes span multiple footprints.71 MISO also contends that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 creates a geographical variation in transmission system characteristics which result in uneven distribution of coordination burden and duplicative work on remedial action schemes.72 MISO contends that the planning assessment performance requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 are better placed in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 to avoid redundancies.73 Finally, MISO proposes a five-year evaluation of remedial action schemes, which includes a renewal requirement to benefit efficient operations.74

    70 MISO Comments at 2.

    71Id.

    72Id. at 3.

    73Id. at 4-5.

    74Id. 6-7.

    32. Bonneville contends that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 gives reliability coordinators too much time to complete reviews of remedial action schemes.75 Bonneville states that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 provides reliability coordinators four calendar months to review a remedial action scheme.76 Bonneville states that in the Western Interconnection, these reviews are currently completed in two weeks. Bonneville continues that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 allows an additional fourteen weeks for review, which would prevent Bonneville from completing remedial action scheme projects in a timely manner.77 Bonneville proposes that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 should require reliability coordinators to complete their reviews within four weeks.78

    75 Bonneville Comments at 2.

    76Id.

    77Id. at 3.

    78Id.

    Commission Determination

    33. MISO's opposition to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is largely based on perceived “inefficiencies” created by the Reliability Standard because it allegedly lacks regional coordination between reliability coordinators and planning coordinators and because of “redundancies” between PRC-012-2 and Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. We are not persuaded that MISO's concerns justify remanding Reliability Standard PRC-012-2. As discussed above, we determine that the Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 satisfies section 215(d)(2) of the FPA in that it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. MISO accepts that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 “shifts responsibility from the eight Regional Reliability Organizations (RROs) to Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators” and MISO “agrees that the Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators are best positioned to perform review and evaluation tasks associated with RAS.” 79 We also note that other commenters, including Joint ISOs, do not share MISO's concerns and support approval of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 as drafted.80 To the extent that MISO continues to believe that improvements should be made to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, MISO may pursue any modifications through the NERC standards development process.81

    79 MISO Comments at 2.

    80 Joint ISOs Comments at 1.

    81 With respect to MISO's proposal that each remedial action scheme be renewed every five years, NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R4 provides for periodic remedial action scheme evaluations (i.e., at least every five years) by planning coordinators that will result in one of three determinations: (1) Affirmation that the existing remedial action scheme is effective; (2) identification of changes needed to the existing remedial action scheme; or (3) justification for remedial action scheme retirement. NERC Petition at 21. Provided that the remedial action scheme is determined to be effective, is made effective, or retired, we see no reliability reason to direct inclusion of an additional renewal sub-requirement.

    34. We are not persuaded by Bonneville's comments regarding the period that reliability coordinators have to review remedial action schemes. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 establishes a comprehensive, consistent review process that includes a detailed checklist that reliability coordinators must use to identify design and implementation aspects of the remedial action schemes that are critical to an effective framework.82 NERC also stated that allowing four months to complete this detailed review is consistent with industry practice, provides adequate time for a complete review, and includes additional flexibility for unique or unforeseen circumstances.83 While four calendar months may be longer than what is typical in the Western Interconnection, we determine that NERC's proposal is reasonable because it provides a single, consistent, continent-wide timeframe for reviews. Moreover, as Bonneville recognizes, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 permits entities to use a mutually agreed upon schedule instead of the four-month default timeline provided for in Requirement R2. Accordingly, Bonneville's request is denied on this issue.

    82 NERC Petition at 17.

    83Id.

    III. Information Collection Statement

    35. The collection of information addressed in this final rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.84 OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.85 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

    84 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

    85 5 CFR 1320.11.

    36. Public Reporting Burden: The number of respondents below is based on an examination of the NERC compliance registry for reliability coordinators, planning coordinators, transmission owners, generation owners, and distribution providers and an estimation of how many entities from that registry will be affected by the proposed Reliability Standard. At the time of Commission review of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, 15 reliability coordinators, 71 planning coordinators, 328 transmission owners, 930 generation owners, and 367 distribution providers in the United States were registered in the NERC compliance registry. However, under NERC's compliance registration program, entities may be registered for multiple functions, so these numbers incorporate some double counting. The Commission notes that many generation sites share a common generation owner.

    37. Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 are in the Reliability Standards approved in FERC-725A, (OMB Control No. 1902-0244). Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 will be retired when Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 becomes effective, which will reduce the burden in FERC-725A.86

    86 The Commission is being conservative and not subtracting hours at this time from FERC-725A.

    38. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 sets forth Requirements for remedial action schemes to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system and are coordinated to provide the service to the system as intended. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 improves upon the existing Reliability Standards because it removes ambiguity in NERC's original “fill-in-the-blank” Reliability Standards by assigning responsibility to appropriate functional entities. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 also streamlines and consolidates the remedial action scheme Reliability Standards into one clear, effective Reliability Standard under Information Collection FERC-725G.

    39. The following table illustrates the estimated burden to be applied to FERC-725G information collection.87

    87 In the burden table, engineering is abbreviated as “Eng.” and record keeping is abbreviated as “R.K.”

    FERC-725G in RM16-20-000 [Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-012-2] Requirement and
  • respondent category for PRC-012-2
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average burden hours & cost
  • per response 88
  • Annual burden hours & total annual cost
    (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) R1. Each RAS-entity (TO, GO, DP) 1,595 1 1,595 (Eng.) 24 hrs. ($1,543); (R.K.) 12 hrs. ($453) 57,420 hrs. (38,280 Eng., 19,140 R.K.); $3,183,556 ($2,461,021 Eng., $722,535 R.K.) R2. Each Reliability Coordinator 15 1 15 (Eng.) 16 hrs. ($1,029); (R.K.) 4 hrs. ($151) 300 hrs. (240 Eng., 60 R.K.); $17,695 ($15,430 Eng., $2,265 R.K.) R4. Each Planning Coordinator 71 1 71 (Eng.) 16 hrs. ($1,029); (R.K.) 4 hrs. ($151) 1,420 hrs. (1,136 Eng., 284 R.K.); $85,754 ($73,033 Eng., $10,721 R.K.) R5, R6, R7, and R8. Each RAS-entity (TO, GO, DP) 1,595 1 1,595 (Eng.) 24 hrs. ($1,543); (R.K.) 12 hrs. ($453) 57,420 hrs. (38,280 Eng., 19,140 R.K.); $3,183,556 ($2,461,021 Eng., $722,535 R.K.) R9. Each Reliability Coordinator 15 1 15 (Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653); (R.K.) 4 hrs. ($151) 210 hrs. (150 Eng., 60 R.K.); $11,909 ($9,644 Eng., $2,265 R.K.) Total 3,291 116,770 hrs. (78,086 Eng., 38,684 R.K.); $6,480,470 ($5,020,149 Eng.; $1,460,321 R.K.)

    Title: FERC-725A (Mandatory Reliability Standards); FERC-725G (Mandatory Reliability Standards: PRC-012-2).

    88 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Burden Hours per Response * $/hour = Cost per Response. The $64.29/hour figure for an engineer and the $37.75/hour figure for a record clerk are based on the average salary plus benefits data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Action: Revision to existing collections.

    OMB Control No: 1902-0244 (FERC-725A); 1902-0252 (FERC-725G).

    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit institutions.

    Frequency of Responses: Annually.

    Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 sets forth Requirements for remedial action schemes to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system and are coordinated to provide the service to the system as intended.

    Internal Review: The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

    40. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

    41. Comments concerning the information collection in this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address: [email protected] Please reference FERC-725A and FERC-725G and the docket number of this Final Rule, Docket No. RM16-20-000, in your submission.

    IV. Environmental Analysis

    42. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.89 The action proposed here falls within the categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.90

    89Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    90 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    43. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.91

    91 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

    44. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will apply to approximately 1681 entities in the United States.92 The Commission did not receive any comments on the impact on small entities. Comparison of the applicable entities with the Commission's small business data indicates that approximately 1,025 are small entities or 61 percent of the respondents affected by proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.93 The Commission estimates for these small entities, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 may need to be evaluated and documented every five years with a cost of $6,322 for each evaluation. The Commission views this as a minimal economic impact for each entity. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    92 NOPR, 158 FERC ¶ 61,042 at P 26.

    93 The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under one of several different categories, each with a size threshold based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates, the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this rulemaking, we apply a 500 employee threshold for each affected entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121).

    VI. Document Availability

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

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

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

    VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    48. The final rule is effective November 27, 2017. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: September 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    Appendix Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) Edison Electric Institute (EEI) International Transmission Company d/b/a ITC Transmission, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, ITC Midwest LLC and ITC Great Plains, LLC (together, ITC) Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE) New York Independent System Operator, Independent Electricity System Operator, ISO New England, Inc. and Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (together, Joint ISOs) North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) [FR Doc. 2017-20669 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 31 [TD 9824] RIN 1545-BN58 Withholding on Payments of Certain Gambling Winnings AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains final regulations with respect to the withholding from, and the information reporting on, certain payments of gambling winnings from horse races, dog races, and jai alai and on certain other payments of gambling winnings. The final regulations affect both payers and payees of the gambling winnings.

    DATES:

    Effective date: These regulations are effective on September 27, 2017.

    Applicability Dates: For dates of applicability, see §§ 31.3402(q)-1(g) and 31.3406(g)-2(h).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Bergman, (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This document contains final regulations in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations under section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The final regulations amend, update, and clarify the existing withholding and information reporting requirements for certain gambling winnings under § 31.3402(q)-1 of the Employment Tax Regulations, and make conforming changes to § 31.3406(g)-2.

    On December 30, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-123841-16) in the Federal Register, 81 FR 96406, containing proposed regulations that would provide a new rule regarding how payers determine the amount of the wager in parimutuel wagering transactions with respect to horse races, dog races, and jai alai, and that would update the existing rules to reflect current law regarding the withholding thresholds and certain information reporting requirements.

    Over 2,700 written public comments were received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested. After careful consideration of the written comments, the proposed regulations are adopted as modified by this Treasury Decision.

    Explanation and Summary of Comments

    All of the written comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking were considered and are available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. Many of these comments addressed similar issues and expressed similar points of view. These comments are summarized in this preamble.

    Rule for Determining the Amount of the Wager in the Case of Horse Races, Dog Races, and Jai Alai

    The proposed regulations contained a new rule for determining the amount of the wager in the case of horse races, dog races, and jai alai to allow all wagers placed in a single parimutuel pool and represented on a single ticket to be aggregated and treated as a single wager. Commenters largely supported the proposed rules because they believe that the rules accurately and fairly reflect parimutuel wagering realities.

    Some commenters raised concerns that the single ticket requirement in the proposed regulations did not address electronic wagering. Commenters stated that in horse racing a paper ticket can only accommodate six separate lines of bets. In contrast, electronic wagering utilizes an “account wagering” system that can accommodate dozens (or even hundreds) of lines of bets in a single parimutuel pool, allowing bettors to place more, customized wagers. As a result, some commenters requested a special rule for electronic wagering.

    The proposed rule at § 31.3402(q)-1(c)(1)(ii) is specifically not limited to a paper ticket, but also includes an electronic record that is presented to collect proceeds from a wager or wagers placed in a single parimutuel pool. Therefore, the rule in proposed § 31.3402(q)-1(c)(1)(ii) is not dependent on the applicable industry's ticketing format. Further, despite the commenters concern regarding the limits on the number of lines a paper ticket can accommodate, the proposed regulations do not limit the number of bets on a single ticket nor do the proposed regulations contain a rule governing the number of bets that can be contained on a single, electronic record of a wagering transaction.

    Another commenter stated that the single ticket requirement puts a person making an electronic bet at a disadvantage because it removes the opportunity to place bets in a single parimutuel pool at multiple points in time throughout the allotted time period for wagering. The single ticket rule in the proposed regulations does not differentiate between electronic betting and placing a bet at a ticket window. Therefore, the proposed rule does not put an electronic bettor at a disadvantage. However, the comment brings to light that there is some confusion regarding how the rule applies in the context of electronic betting.

    The single-ticket requirement in the proposed regulations allows aggregation of wagers that are placed in the same parimutuel pool if they are represented on a single ticket. This is the case regardless of whether the ticket is paper or electronic. This requirement was included in the proposed regulations to limit the potential for fraud, such as a winning bettor collecting losing tickets from another bettor or bettors who placed bets in the same parimutuel pool to artificially increase the amount of the wager. In addition, the single-ticket requirement improves administrability because it does not require payers to collect information reflected on multiple tickets. As the preamble to the proposed regulations explains, the single ticket requirement was not intended to limit the amount of the wager to bets placed at a single point in time because a ticket containing prior bets in a single pool can be cancelled, and the original and additional wagers in that pool can be placed on a new ticket. The fraud and administrability concerns that apply to paper tickets do not apply equally to electronic records because each person's bets are reflected on a single electronic wagering account. Accordingly, electronic bettors may aggregate wagers placed at different points in time without having to cancel prior wagers and place them on a new ticket as long as the wagers meet the requirements in the proposed rule—that is, they are placed in a single parimutuel pool and are represented on a single, electronic record.

    Because the comments received in response to the proposed rule do not justify any change, the final regulations adopt the proposed rule without modification.

    Effective/Applicability Dates

    The proposed regulations provided that final regulations would apply to payments made after the date they are published in the Federal Register. Some commenters requested a delayed effective date to allow time for industry stakeholders to update their systems and seek any necessary state regulatory approval. One commenter specficially suggested that 45 days following publication of the final regulations would be sufficient time to perform such updates. In addition, the commenters suggested that the final rules be effective for wagering transactions with respect to winning events that occur after the date that the final rules are published in the Federal Register. The Treasury Department and IRS agree with these comments. Therefore, the final regulations are applicable to reportable gambling winnings paid with respect to a winning event that occurs on or after 45 days from the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. If they so choose, payers may rely on the provisions of the final regulations for payments made after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register, regardless of when the related winning event occurred.

    Other Comments

    Several commenters raised concerns regarding the thresholds for information reporting and withholding for certain gambling winnings. Another commenter requested that the regulations provide an exception to withholding under section 3402(q). Neither the threshold for information reporting with respect to gambling winnings not subject to withholding nor exceptions to section 3402(q) withholding were the focus of the proposed regulations. In addition, the withholding thresholds are defined by statute. These comments are outside the scope of the proposed regulations, and therefore the comments have not been adopted in the final regulations.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.

    It is hereby certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although this rule may affect a substantial number of small entities, the economic impact is minimal because this rule merely provides guidance as to the statutory withholding rules and filing of information returns for payers who make reportable payments of certain gambling winnings and who are required by sections 3402 and 6041 to withhold and make returns reporting those payments. This rule reduces the existing burden on payers to comply with the statutory requirement by simplifying the process for payers to verify payees' identities with a broader range of documents that are more readily available.

    This rule also will result in a reduction in the number of forms filed. Instead of treating all components of a bet made by a gambler in a single parimutuel pool as a separate amount wagered, the rules treat all amounts wagered in a single parimutuel pool reflected on a single ticket as the amount wagered for purposes of determining whether reporting or withholding is needed. For the reasons stated, the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) is not required.

    Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on the regulations' impact on small businesses, and no comments were received.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is David Bergman of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 31

    Employment taxes, Fishing vessels, Gambling, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation.

    Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 31 is amended as follows:

    PART 31—EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE Par. 1. The authority citation for part 31 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 31.3402(q)-1 is amended: 1. By revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c)(1) and (4). 2. By redesignating paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) as paragraphs (f), (d), and (e), respectively. 3. By revising newly designated paragraphs (d) and (e). 4. By removing, in newly designated paragraph (f), Example 3 and Example 11, redesignating Examples 4 through 10 as Examples 3 through 9, and adding examples 10 through 16. 5. By removing, in newly designated paragraph (f) the language “example 4” in newly designated Example 4 and adding in its place the language “example 3” and by removing the language “example 6” in newly designated Example 6 and adding in its place the language “example 5” wherever it appears. 6. By adding paragraph (g).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 31.3402(q)-1 Extension of withholding to certain gambling winnings.

    (a) Withholding obligation—(1) General rule. Every person, including the Government of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, or any instrumentality of any of the foregoing making any payment of “winnings subject to withholding” (defined in paragraph (b) of the section) must deduct and withhold a tax in an amount equal to the product of the third lowest rate of tax applicable under section 1(c) and the payment. The tax must be deducted and withheld upon payment of the winnings by the person making the payment (“payer”). See paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section for a special rule relating to the time for making deposits of withheld amounts and filing the return with respect to those amounts. Any person receiving a payment of winnings subject to withholding must furnish the payer a statement as required in paragraph (d) of this section. Payers of winnings subject to withholding must file a return with the Internal Revenue Service and furnish a statement to the payee as required in paragraph (e) of this section. With respect to reporting requirements for certain payments of gambling winnings not subject to withholding, see section 6041 and the regulations thereunder.

    (b) Winnings subject to withholding—(1) In general. Winnings subject to withholding means any payment from—

    (i) A wager placed in a State-conducted lottery (defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section) but only if the proceeds from the wager exceed $5,000;

    (ii) A wager placed in a sweepstakes, wagering pool, or lottery other than a State-conducted lottery but only if the proceeds from the wager exceed $5,000; or

    (iii) Any other wagering transaction (as defined in paragraph (c)(3) of this section) but only if the proceeds from the wager:

    (A) Exceed $5,000; and

    (B) Are at least 300 times as large as the amount of the wager.

    (2) Total proceeds subject to withholding. If proceeds from the wager qualify as winnings subject to withholding, then the total proceeds from the wager, and not merely amounts in excess of $5,000, are subject to withholding.

    (c) Definitions; special rules—(1) Rules for determining amount of proceeds from a wager—(i) In general. The amount of proceeds from a wager is the amount paid with respect to the wager, less the amount of the wager.

    (ii) Amount of the wager in the case of horse races, dog races, and jai alai. In the case of a wagering transaction with respect to horse races, dog races, or jai alai, all wagers placed in a single parimutuel pool and represented on a single ticket are aggregated and treated as a single wager for purposes of determining the amount of the wager. A ticket in the case of horse races, dog races, or jai alai is a written or electronic record that the payee must present to collect proceeds from a wager or wagers.

    (iii) Amount paid with respect to a wager—(A) Identical wagers. Amounts paid with respect to identical wagers are treated as paid with respect to a single wager for purposes of calculating the amount of proceeds from a wager. Two or more wagers are identical wagers if winning depends on the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the same event or events; the wagers are placed with the same payer; and, in the case of horse races, dog races, or jai alai, the wagers are placed in the same parimutuel pool. Wagers may be identical wagers even if the amounts wagered differ as long as the wagers are otherwise treated as identical wagers under this paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A). Tickets purchased in a lottery generally are not identical wagers, because the designation of each ticket as a winner generally would not be based on the occurrence of the same event, for example, the drawing of a particular number.

    (B) Non-monetary proceeds. In determining the amount paid with respect to a wager, proceeds which are not money are taken into account at the fair market value.

    (C) Periodic payments. Periodic payments, including installment payments or payments which are to be made periodically for the life of a person, are aggregated for purposes of determining the amount paid with respect to the wager. The aggregate amount of periodic payments to be made for a person's life is based on that person's life expectancy. See §§ 1.72-5 and 1.72-9 of this chapter for rules used in computing the expected return on annuities. For purposes of determining the amount subject to withholding, the first periodic payment must be reduced by the amount of the wager.

    (4) Certain payments to nonresident aliens or foreign corporations. A payment of winnings that is subject to withholding tax under section 1441(a) (relating to withholding on nonresident aliens) or 1442(a) (relating to withholding on foreign corporations) is not subject to the tax imposed by section 3402(q) and this section when the payee is a foreign person, as determined under the rules of section 1441(a) and the regulations thereunder. A payment is treated as being subject to withholding tax under section 1441(a) or 1442(a) notwithstanding that the rate of such tax is reduced (even to zero) as may be provided by an applicable treaty with another country. However, a reduced or zero rate of withholding of tax must not be applied by the payer in lieu of the rate imposed by sections 1441 and 1442 unless the person receiving the winnings has provided to the payer the documentation required by § 1.1441-6 of this chapter to establish entitlement to treaty benefits.

    (d) Statement furnished by payee—(1) In general. Each person who is making a payment subject to withholding under this section must obtain from the payee a statement described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

    (2) Contents of statement. Each person who is to receive a payment of winnings subject to withholding under this section must furnish the payer a statement on Form W-2G or 5754 (whichever is applicable) made under the penalties of perjury containing—

    (i) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the winner accompanied by a declaration that no other person is entitled to any portion of such payment, or

    (ii) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the payee and of every person entitled to any portion of the payment.

    (3) Multiple payments. If more than one payment of winnings subject to withholding is to be made with respect to a single wager, for example in the case of an annuity, the payee is required to furnish the payer a statement with respect to the first payment only, provided that the other payments are taken into account in a return required by paragraph (e) of this section.

    (4) Reliance on statement for identical wagers. If the payee furnishes the statement which may be required pursuant to § 1.6011-3 of this chapter (regarding the requirement of a statement from payees of certain gambling winnings), indicating that the payee (and any other persons entitled to a portion of the winnings) is entitled to winnings from identical wagers, as defined in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, and indicating the amount of the winnings, if any, then the payer may rely upon the statement in determining the total amount of proceeds from the wager under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

    (e) Return of payer—(1) In general. Every person making payment of winnings for which a statement is required under paragraph (d) of this section must file a return on Form W-2G at the Internal Revenue Service location designated in the instructions to the form on or before February 28 (March 31 if filed electronically) of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the payment of winnings is made. The return required by this paragraph (e) need not include the statement by the payee required by paragraph (d) of this section and, therefore, need not be signed by the payee, provided the statement is retained by the payer as long as its contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. In addition, the return required by this paragraph (e) need not contain the information required by paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section provided the information is obtained with respect to the payee and retained by the payer as long as its contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. For payments to more than one winner, a separate Form W-2G, which in no event need be signed by the winner, must be filed with respect to each such winner. Each Form W-2G must contain the following:

    (i) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the payer;

    (ii) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the winner;

    (iii) The date, amount of the payment, and amount withheld;

    (iv) The type of wagering transaction;

    (v) Except with respect to winnings from a wager placed in a State-conducted lottery, a general description of the two types of identification (as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section), one of which must have the payee's photograph on it (except in the case of tribal member identification cards in certain circumstances as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section), that the payer relied on to verify the payee's name, address, and taxpayer identification number;

    (vi) The amount of winnings from identical wagers; and

    (vii) Any other information required by the form, instructions, or other applicable guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

    (2) Identification. The following items are treated as identification for purposes of paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section—

    (i) Government-issued identification (for example, a driver's license, passport, social security card, military identification card, tribal member identification card issued by a federally-recognized Indian tribe, or voter registration card) in the name of the payee; and

    (ii) A Form W-9, “Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification,” signed by the payee that includes the payee's name, address, taxpayer identification number, and other information required by the form. A Form W-9 is not acceptable for this purpose if the payee has modified the form (other than pursuant to instructions to the form) or if the payee has deleted the jurat or other similar provisions by which the payee certifies or affirms the correctness of the statements contained on the form.

    (3) Special rule for tribal member identification cards. A tribal member identification card need not contain the payee's photograph to meet the identification requirement described in paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section if—

    (i) The payee is a member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe;

    (ii) The payee presents the payer with a tribal member identification card issued by a federally-recognized Indian tribe stating that the payee is a member of such tribe; and

    (iii) The payer is a gaming establishment (as described in § 1.6041-10(b)(2)(iv) of this chapter) owned or licensed (in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 2710) by the tribal government that issued the tribal member identification card referred to in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section.

    (4) Transmittal form. Persons making payments of winnings subject to withholding must use Form 1096 to transmit Forms W-2G to the Internal Revenue Service.

    (5) Furnishing a statement to the payee. Every payer required to make a return under paragraph (e)(1) of this section must also make and furnish to each payee, with respect to each payment of winnings subject to withholding, a written statement that contains the information that is required to be included on the return under paragraph (e)(1) of this section. The payer must furnish the statement to the payee on or before January 31st of the year following the calendar year in which payment of the winnings subject to withholding is made. The statement will be considered furnished to the payee if it is provided to the payee at the time of payment or if it is mailed to the payee on or before January 31st of the year following the calendar year in which payment was made.

    (f) * * *

    Example 10.

    (i) B places a $15 bet at the cashier window at the racetrack for horse A to win the fifth race at the racetrack that day. After placing the first bet, B gains confidence in horse A's prospects to win and places an additional $40 bet at the cashier window at the racetrack for horse A to win the fifth race, receiving a second ticket for this second bet. Horse A wins the fifth race, and B wins a total of $5,500 (100 to 1 odds) on those bets. The $15 bet and the $40 bet are identical wagers under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section because winning on both bets depended on the occurrence of the same event and the bets are placed in the same parimutuel pool with the same payer. This is true regardless of the fact that the amount of the wager differs in each case.

    (ii) B cashes the tickets at different cashier windows. Pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section and § 1.6011-3, B completes a Form W-2G indicating that the amount of winnings is from identical wagers and provides the form to each cashier. The payments by each cashier of $1,500 and $4,000 are less than the $5,000 threshold for withholding, but under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, identical wagers are treated as paid with respect to a single wager for purposes of determining the proceeds from a wager. The payment is not subject to withholding or reporting because although the proceeds from the wager are $5,445 ($1,500 + $4,000 − $55), the proceeds from the wager are not at least 300 times as great as the amount wagered ($55 × 300 = $16,500).

    Example 11.

    B makes two $1,000 bets in a single “show” pool for the same jai alai game, one bet on Player X to show and one bet on Player Y to show. A show bet is a winning bet if the player comes in first, second, or third in a single game. The bets are placed at the same time at the same cashier window, and B receives a single ticket showing both bets. Player X places second in the game, and Player Y does not place first, second, or third in the game. B wins $8,000 from his bet on Player X. Because winning on both bets does not depend on the occurrence of the same event, the bets are not identical bets under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. However, pursuant to the rule in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the amount of the wager is the aggregate amount of both wagers ($2,000) because the bets were placed in a single parimutuel pool and reflected on a single ticket. The payment is not subject to withholding or reporting because although the proceeds from the wager are $6,000 ($8,000 − $2,000), the proceeds from the wager are not at least 300 times as great as the amount wagered ($2,000 × 300 = $600,000).

    Example 12.

    B bets a total of $120 on a three-dog exacta box bet ($20 for each one of the six combinations played) at the dog racetrack and receives a single ticket reflecting the bet from the cashier. B wins $5,040 from one of the selected combinations. Pursuant to the rule in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the amount of the wager is $120, not $20 for the single winning combination of the six combinations played. The payment is not subject to withholding under section 3402(q) because the proceeds from the wager are $4,920 ($5,040 − $120), which is below the section 3402(q) withholding threshold.

    Example 13.

    B makes two $12 Pick 6 bets at the horse racetrack at two different cashier windows and receives two different tickets each representing a single $12 Pick 6 bet. In his two Pick 6 bets, B selects the same horses to win races 1-5 but selects different horses to win race 6. All Pick 6 bets on those races at that racetrack are part of a single parimutuel pool from which Pick 6 winning bets are paid. B wins $5,020 from one of his Pick 6 bets. Pursuant to the rule in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets are not aggregated for purposes of determining the amount of the wager because the bets are reflected on separate tickets. Assuming that the applicable rate is 25%, the racetrack must deduct and withhold $1,252 (($5,020 − $12) × 25%) because the amount of the proceeds of $5,008 ($5,020 − $12) is greater than $5,000 and is at least 300 times as great as the amount wagered ($12 × 300 = $3,600). The racetrack also must report B's winnings on Form W-2G pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and furnish a copy of the Form W-2G to B.

    Example 14.

    C makes two $50 bets in two different parimutuel pools for the same jai alai game. One bet is an “exacta” in which C bets on player M to win and player N to “place.” The other bet is a “trifecta” in which C bets on player M to win, player N to “place,” and player O to “show.” C wins both bets and is paid $2,000 with respect to the bet in the “exacta” pool and $3,100 with respect to the bet in the “trifecta” pool. Under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, the bets are not identical bets. Under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets are not aggregated for purposes of determining the amount of the wager for either payment because they are not wagers in the same parimutuel pool. No section 3402(q) withholding is required on either payment because neither payment separately exceeds the $5,000 withholding threshold.

    Example 15.

    C makes two $100 bets for the same dog to win a particular race. C places one bet at the racetrack and one bet at an off-track betting establishment, but the two pools constitute a single pool. C receives separate tickets for each bet. C wins both bets and is paid $4,000 from the racetrack and $4,000 from the off-track betting establishment. Under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets are not aggregated for purposes of determining the amount of the wager because the wager placed at the racetrack and the wager placed at the off-track betting establishment are reflected on separate tickets, despite being placed in the same parimutuel pool. No section 3402(q) withholding is required because neither payment separately exceeds the $5,000 withholding threshold.

    Example 16.

    C places a $200 Pick 6 bet for a series of races at the racetrack on a particular day and receives a single ticket for the bet. No wager correctly picks all six races that day, so that portion of the pool carries over to the following day. On the following day, C places an additional $200 Pick 6 bet for that day's series of races and receives a new ticket for that bet. C wins $100,000 on the second day. Pursuant to the rule in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets are on two separate tickets, so C's two Pick 6 bets are not aggregated for purposes of determining the amount of the wager. Assuming that the applicable rate is 25%, the racetrack must deduct and withhold $24,950 (($100,000 − $200) × 25%) because the amount of the proceeds of $99,800 ($100,000 − $200) is greater than $5,000, and is at least 300 times as great as the amount wagered ($200 × 300 = $60,000). The racetrack also must report C's winnings on Form W-2G pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and furnish a copy of the Form W-2G to C.

    (g) Applicability date. The rules in this section apply to payments made with respect to a winning event that occurs after November 13, 2017. For rules that apply to payments made with respect to a winning event on or before that date, see § 31.3402(q)-1 as contained in 26 CFR part 31, revised April 1, 2017.

    Par. 3. Section 31.3406-0 is amended by adding an entry for paragraph (h) to § 31.3406(g)-2 to read as follows:
    § 31.3406-0 Outline of the backup withholding regulations.
    § 31.3406(g)-2 Exception for reportable payments for which backup withholding is otherwise required.

    (h) Applicability date.

    Par. 4. Section 31.3406(g)-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 31.3406(g)-2 Exception for reportable payment for which withholding is otherwise required.

    (d) * * *

    (2) Definition of a reportable gambling winning and determination of amount subject to backup withholding. For purposes of withholding under section 3406, a reportable gambling winning is any gambling winning subject to information reporting under section 6041. A gambling winning (other than a winning from bingo, keno, or slot machines) is a reportable gambling winning only if the amount paid with respect to the wager is $600 or more and if the proceeds are at least 300 times as large as the amount wagered. See § 1.6041-10 of this chapter to determine whether a winning from bingo, keno, or slot machines is a reportable gambling winning and thus subject to withholding under section 3406. The amount of a reportable gambling winning is—

    (i) The amount paid with respect to the amount of the wager reduced, at the option of the payer; by

    (ii) The amount of the wager.

    (3) Special rules. For special rules for determining the amount of the wager in a wagering transaction with respect to horse racing, dog racing, and jai alai, or amounts paid with respect to identical wagers, see § 31.3402(q)-1(c).

    (h) Applicability date. The rules apply to reportable gambling winnings paid with respect to a winning event that occurs after November 13, 2017. For rules that apply to payments made with respect to a winning event on or before that date, see § 31.3406(g)-2 as contained in 26 CFR part 31, revised April 1, 2017.

    Kirsten Wielobob, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: August 21, 2017. David J. Kautter, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20720 Filed 9-25-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-1041] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Fautasi Ocean Challenge Canoe Race, Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent special local regulation for the Fautasi Ocean Challenge canoe races in Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa. These annual events historically occur four separate weekend or holiday days each year. The annual dates include one day in April and three separate days between Veteran's Day and the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Each of the four days, canoe races are held between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. This action is necessary to safeguard the participants and spectators, including all crews, vessels, and persons on the water in Pago Pago Harbor during the event. This regulation will functionally close the port to vessel traffic during the race, but will not require the evacuation of any vessels from the harbor. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the harbor would be prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or not part of the race patrol, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu or a designated representative. Vessels who are already moored or anchored in the harbor seeking permission to remain there shall request permission from the COTP unless deemed a spectator vessel that is moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area. The area concerned for this permanent special local regulation is described below.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-1041 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander John Bannon, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu; telephone (808) 541-4359, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On January 18, 2017, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (82 FR 5480) entitled “Special Local Regulation; Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa.” In the NPRM we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this canoe race event. During the comment period that ended February 17, 2017, we received no comments.

    This event will consist of a series of three single race days within Pago Pago Harbor each November and one race day in April. The event will include 50 longboats with paddling crews of 30-50 persons each. It is anticipated that a large number of spectator pleasure craft will be drawn to the event. Spectator vessels and commercial vessel traffic would pose a significant safety hazard to the longboats, longboat crew members, and other persons and vessels involved with the event due to the longboats limited maneuverability within the port. Traditionally, the event is held on Fridays, Saturdays, or holiday week days, pending when Veteran's Day falls each year, and are dependent on local weather; both factors will dictate the event days each year.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Captain of the Port, Honolulu (COTP), is establishing a permanent special local regulation to minimize vessel traffic in Pago Pago Harbor before, during, and after the scheduled event to safeguard persons and vessels during the longboat races. A regulated area is a water area, shore area, or water and shore area, for safety or environmental purposes, of which access is limited to authorized persons, vehicles, or vessels. The statutory basis for this rulemaking is 33 U.S.C. 1233, which gives the Coast Guard, under a delegation from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, regulatory authority to enforce the Ports and Waterways Safety Act.

    The Captain of the Port Honolulu has determined that potential safety hazards exist to the longboats, longboat crew members, and other persons and vessels involved with the event due to the longboats limited maneuverability within the port and large amount of spectator vessels and commercial traffic drawn to the event. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the event.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published January 18, 2017. However, after the NPRM period, Coast Guard was notified by the event sponsor that an additional event occurs on April 17 annually in celebration of American Samoa's Flag Day. The Coast Guard is amending this regulation to include this event.

    This rule will create a permanent special local regulation in Pago Pago Harbor. The regulated area will close the harbor to all vessels not authorized by the COTP for entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the port for the duration of the event. The COTP will authorize registered participants, support vessels, and enforcement vessels to enter and remain in the area. No other vessels will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The harbor will remain closed until the Coast Guard issues an “All Clear” after races have concluded and the harbor is deemed safe for normal operations. This rule will not require any vessel already moored to evacuate the port, provided they are moored in such a way that they do not interfere with the event.

    The COTP will use all appropriate means to notify the public when the special local regulation in this rule will be enforced. Such means may include publication in the Federal Register a Notice of Enforcement, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and Local Notice to Mariners. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the Special Local Regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safety transit through the event with prior coordination and approval by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, or designated representative. Furthermore, the annual events occur during times of the year when commercial vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulation.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.1401 to read as follows:
    § 100.1401 Special Local Regulation; Fautasi Ocean Challenge Canoe Race, Pago Pago Harbor, America Samoa.

    (a) Location. The following regulated area is established as a special local regulation: Breakers Point (eastern edge of Pago Pago Harbor entrance) thence southeast to 14°18′47″ S., 170°38′54.5″ W. thence southwest to 14°19′03″ S., 170° 39′14″ W., thence northwest to Tulutulu Point and then following the coastline encompassing Pago Pago Harbor. This regulated area extends from the surface of the water to the ocean floor.

    (b) Effective period. These annual events occur on four separate dates to include: April 17; and three days to include Friday, Saturday or a holiday weekday, in November between the week of Veteran's Day and the Thanksgiving weekend, lasting between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. The Captain of the Port Honolulu will establish specific enforcement dates that will be announced in advance by Notice of Enforcement, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and prior event outreach, including local advertisement and on-scene designated representatives prior to and during the event.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or support/enforcement vessels are considered spectators. The “support/enforcement vessels” consist of any territory or local law enforcement vessels and sponsor-provided vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port Honolulu to patrol the regulated area.

    (2) No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter or impede the transit of participants or support/enforcement vessels in the regulated area during the enforcement dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through a support/enforcement vessel.

    (3) Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.

    (d) Informational broadcasts. The Captain of the Port Honolulu will establish enforcement dates and times with a Notice of Enforcement. If circumstances render enforcement of the regulated area unnecessary for the entirety of these periods, the Captain of the Port or his designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners that the regulated area is no longer being enforced. The harbor will remain closed until the Coast Guard issues an “All Clear” for the harbor after the race has concluded and the harbor is deemed safe for normal operations.

    (e) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule may be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. M.C. Long, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20664 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408; FRL-9968-20-Region 3] Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware. The Clean Air Act's (CAA) good neighbor provision requires EPA and states to address the interstate transport of air pollution that affects the ability of downwind states to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the good neighbor provision requires each state in its SIP to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in a downwind state. Delaware has submitted a SIP revision that addresses the interstate transport requirements, among other things, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA has determined that Delaware's SIP has adequate provisions to prohibit the state from significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA is approving Delaware's SIP revision submittal in regards to the good neighbor interstate transport provision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on December 26, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 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-2013-0408 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, 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:

    Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware through the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i), of the CAA as it relates to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIP revisions meeting the applicable elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2).1 Several of these applicable elements are delineated within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) generally requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of air pollution. There are four prongs within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA; section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This direct final action addresses the first two prongs, which are also collectively known as the good neighbor provision. According to the CAA's good neighbor provision located within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), a state's SIP must contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that “contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard.” Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA gives independent significance to the matter of nonattainment (prong 1) and to that of maintenance (prong 2).

    1 SIP revisions that are intended to meet the requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the elements under 110(a) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware through DNREC provided a SIP revision submittal to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving one portion of Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal—the portion addressing prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA previously acted on other portions of Delaware's March 27, 2013 SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.2

    2 On April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644), EPA approved portions of Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS addressing the following: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). In that action, EPA stated it would take later action on the portion of the March 27, 2013 SIP submittal addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.

    In order to demonstrate that its SIP adequately addresses interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal identifies measures in its approved SIP that cover stationary, mobile, and area sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both of which are precursors to ozone. Delaware's submittal identifies SIP-approved regulations that reduce VOCs and NOX emissions from a variety of stationary sources within the state, including power plants, industrial boilers, and peaking units. Delaware states in its submittal that its sources are generally controlled with best available control technology (BACT) or lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) level controls. Delaware notes that sources are generally controlled on a unit-by-unit basis at a cost of $1,300 to $11,000 per ton of NOX reduced.3 To substantiate its control costs and feasibility claims, Delaware includes an assessment of potential additional control measures on mobile and stationary sources, including both electric generating unit (EGU) and non-EGU categories. The assessment evaluates, for each source or category, the technical and economic feasibility for additional NOX and VOC reductions. For non-EGUs, Delaware could not identify any cost efficient controls beyond those already required by the SIP; estimating that at about $5,000 per ton of pollutant (VOC, NOX) reduced, only a small amount of air emission reductions would be seen.4 In its submittal, Delaware identifies the following Delaware regulations, which are already included in its approved SIP: 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 (New Source Review); 7 DE Admin. Code 1112 (NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)); 7 DE Admin. Code 1124 (VOC RACT); 7 DE Admin. Codes 1126 and 1136 (vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) control measures). In its submittal, Delaware concludes that it has satisfied the requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because its sources are already well controlled for NOX and VOCs, and because further reductions beyond the State's current SIP measures for NOX and VOCs are not economically feasible.

    3See “Attachment A,” State Submittal—Delaware Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408.

    4 In its March 27, 2013 submittal, Delaware stated that at about $5,000 per ton, the State could reduce NOX emissions by about 375 tons per year (tpy) and VOCs by 255 tpy.

    III. EPA Analysis A. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

    The CAA gives EPA a backstop role to issue federal implementation plans (FIPs), as appropriate, in the event that states fail to submit approvable SIPs. On September 8, 2016, EPA took steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to emissions in 22 eastern states (not including Delaware) by finalizing an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses the obligations of good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504. This CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain affected EGUs in the May-September ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and thereby help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 The CSAPR Update, which specifically focuses on reducing EGU NOX emissions, includes technical information and related analysis to assist states with meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR Update uses the same framework EPA used when developing the original CSAPR, EPA's transport rule addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. The CSAPR framework establishes the following four-step process to address the requirements of the good neighbor provision:

    5 Ground-level ozone is formed when VOCs and NOX combine in the presence of sunlight. The rate of ozone production can be limited by the availability of either VOCs or NOX. In the case of the eastern states, ozone reduction has shown to be more effective by reducing NOX which is why reducing NOX emissions is the focus of both the CSAPR Update and today's rulemaking action regarding Delaware.

    (1) Identify downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS;

    (2) determine which upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts sufficient to link 6 them to the downwind air quality problems;

    6 In this rulemaking action, the terms “link,” “linked,” or “linkage” indicate an association or relationship between two entities and should not be construed as there being any type of physical connection.

    (3) identify and quantify, for states linked to downwind air quality problems, upwind emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS; and

    (4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by adopting permanent and enforceable measures in a FIP or SIP.This four-step framework is informed by cost-effectiveness and feasibility of controls, emissions, meteorology, and air quality factors. In the CSAPR Update, EPA used this four-step framework to determine each linked upwind state's significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of downwind air quality.

    B. EPA's Assessment of Delaware

    While EPA's CSAPR Update analysis included an assessment of Delaware, the State was not included in the final CSAPR Update FIPs. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that steps 1 and 2 of the CSAPR framework linked Delaware to a downwind maintenance receptor in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. EPA applied step 3 of the CSAPR framework to establish EGU NOX emission budgets that reflect NOX reductions necessary to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.7

    7 Due to the State's sources already being equivalently controlled, EPA's assessment shows no cost effective EGU NOX reduction potential available in Delaware by the 2017 ozone season, the implementation date for the CSAPR Update. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).

    For this analysis, EPA applied a multi-factor evaluation of cost, NOX reductions, and air quality improvements. As part of this analysis, EPA explicitly evaluated whether the budget quantified for each state would result in over-control,8 as required by precedents of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit.9 Specifically, EPA evaluated whether at each level of NOX emission budget, the identified downwind ozone problems (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance problems) are resolved or the upwind contribution from any linked state dropped below the 1% screening threshold used to link the state. This multi-factor evaluation of cost, NOX reductions, and air quality improvements (including consideration of potential over-control) resulted in EPA's quantification of upwind emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind.10

    8 In this rulemaking action, the term “over-control” describes the possibility that a state might be compelled to reduce emissions beyond the point at which every affected downwind state is in attainment. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 2014; EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 127 (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2015).

    9Id.

    10 CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504, 74519 (October 26, 2016).

    C. Air Quality Assessment Tool

    The emission reductions under the various levels of emission budgets analyzed by EPA can result in air quality improvements such that individual receptors drop below the level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on the cumulative air quality improvement from the states analyzed. In examining emissions contribution to nonattainment and maintenance receptors for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA used the Air Quality Assessment Tool (AQAT) to estimate the air quality impacts of the upwind state EGU NOX emission budgets on downwind ozone pollution levels for each of the assessed EGU NOX emission budget levels. EPA assessed the magnitude of air quality improvement at each receptor at each level of control, examined whether receptors are considered to be solved,11 and looked at the individual contributions of emissions from each state to each of that state's linked receptors. EPA also examined each state's air quality contributions at each emission budget level, assessing whether a state maintained at least one linkage to a receptor that was estimated to continue to have nonattainment or maintenance problems with the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    11 When the average and maximum design values of a receptor decreases to values below 76 parts per billion (ppb) or (0.076 ppm), the nonattainment and maintenance issues of the receptor would be considered solved.

    D. Conclusion

    EPA examined emission budget levels of: $0 per ton; $800 per ton; $1,400 per ton; $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; and $6,400 per ton.1213 This analysis accounted for existing limits on Delaware EGUs in the State's March 27, 2013 SIP submittal. Notably, for Delaware, EPA's assessment of EGUs' NOX reduction potential showed no cost effective reductions available in Delaware within the allotted short-term implementation timeframe (by 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS) at every cost threshold EPA evaluated. 81 FR at 74553 (EPA's assessment of EGU NOX reduction potential shows no cost effective reductions available in Delaware in 2017 at any evaluated cost threshold because they are already equivalently controlled). Further, EPA estimated that implementation of the CSAPR Update along with NOX controls in Delaware's approved SIP are anticipated to resolve the lone downwind maintenance receptor to which Delaware is linked.14

    12 Due to the close timing of Pennsylvania finalizing its May 2016 regulation “Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs,” also known as RACT II, to the publication of the CSAPR Update, EPA was not able to factor expected emission limits from RACT II directly into the previously concluded modeling for CSAPR Update when all of the other relevant in-place state and national rules were incorporated. EPA therefore conducted a separate analysis in order to incorporate the impacts of the new PA RACT emission limits in addition to the already incorporated national and state rules. The total results were incorporated into the Agency's assessment at each emission budget level (e.g. $0/ton through $6,400/ton) and at each stage of the rulemaking analysis. See “Pennsylvania RACT Memo to the Docket,” Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500 for a more detailed discussion.

    13 Pennsylvania's RACT II provisions are part of Pennsylvania's strategy to meet its RACT obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action on Pennsylvania's RACT II.

    14 As stated in section VI.D. in the preamble of the final CSAPR Update and in the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Technical Support Document (TSD) used to support the final CSAPR Update, EPA's AQAT assessment indicates that an emissions budget reflecting $800 per ton of NOX reduced would resolve the maintenance problem at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania maintenance receptor (monitor ID 4210100124).

    EPA evaluated EGU NOX reduction potential under the CSAPR Update and the assessment showed that there was no cost effective EGU NOX reduction potential within Delaware at any evaluated cost threshold because the Delaware EGUs are already equivalently controlled.15 In Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal, in addition to EGUs, Delaware evaluated sources other than EGUs and the State could not identify any cost efficient controls for reducing VOCs or NOX beyond those already required by the SIP.

    15See 81 FR at 74553.

    In conclusion, when evaluating all the available information, EPA finds that Delaware has implemented measures that have reduced statewide VOC and NOX emissions and that should continue to reduce emissions within the State. The maintenance receptor that Delaware is linked to in the CSAPR Update is projected by EPA to have its maintenance issue resolved with CSAPR Update implementation 16 and existing NOX controls in place in Delaware. EPA finds Delaware has no cost effective EGU NOX emissions reduction potential, beyond what is already required in Delaware's SIP, at or below a $6,400 per ton threshold used in the CSAPR Update determinations by 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds that Delaware's non-EGU sources are also well-controlled and that there is limited VOC and NOX emissions reduction potential, beyond what it already required in the State's SIP, at and below the $5,000 per ton threshold. Thus, EPA finds Delaware has fully satisfied its obligation with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and we are approving the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP submittal addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    16 EPA notes that the preliminary 2014-2016 design value for the identified CSAPR Update Philadelphia maintenance site does not reflect the air quality results as a result of the CSAPR Update implementation because sources began compliance with the rule in May 1, 2017.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of the CAA for the reasons discussed in this rulemaking.

    On April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644), EPA finalized approval of the following infrastructure elements or portions thereof from the March 27, 2013 submittal: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action approves the remaining portions of the March 27, 2013 SIP revision, which address prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, also known as the good neighbor provision. EPA did not take action upon these elements in our prior SIP approval action, published on April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644).

    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 December 26, 2017 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 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.

    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 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, addressing Delaware's interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 11, 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 I—Delaware 2. In § 52.420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a second entry for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, immediately after the first entry titled “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS” to read as follows:
    § 52.420 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State
  • submittal date
  • EPA approval
  • date
  • Additional
  • explanation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Statewide 3/27/13 9/27/17, [insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-20598 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0878; FRL-9966-67] Fluazifop-P-Butyl; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of fluazifop-p-butyl in or multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective September 27, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0878, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0878 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 27, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0878, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 6, 2015 (80 FR 18327) (FRL-9924-00), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4E8328) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide fluazifop-p-butyl in or on the raw agricultural commodities lettuce, head and leaf at 5.0 parts per million (ppm); strawberry at 3.0 ppm; onion, green at 1.5 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.05 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.3 ppm; tuberous and corm vegetables (except for potato) subgroup 1D at 1.5 ppm; small fruit vine climbing, except for fuzzy kiwifruit subgroup 13-07F at 0.03 ppm; and onion, bulb subgroup 3-07A at 0.5 ppm as well as tolerances with regional registration for grass hay at 15 ppm; and grass forage at 4.0 ppm. Upon the approval of the aforementioned tolerances, IR-4 requested removal of the existing tolerances for grape at 0.01 ppm; onion, bulb at 0.5 ppm; and sweet potato, roots at 0.05 ppm; and also requested amend the existing tolerance for rhubarb from 0.5 ppm to 0.4 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for some commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fluazifop-P-butyl including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluazifop-P-butyl follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    The toxicity profile shows that the principal toxic effects of fluazifop-P-butyl are changes in the liver and kidney following exposure via the oral route. Liver toxicity is observed in rats, hamster, and dogs, while kidney toxicity is observed in rats.

    Other adversely effected organs included the testes and eyes in rats and hamsters. Adrenal fatty vacuolation and increased incidence of thymic involution were noted in the chronic dog study. Gall bladder stones and ovarian cell hyperplasia were noted in the carcinogenicity study in hamsters. From the toxicity studies, the lowest LOAELs were observed in long-term studies, suggesting progression of toxicity with duration of treatment.

    Quantitative sensitivity of the fetus was observed in the rat developmental studies in which no maternal toxicity was observed. Developmental toxicity in the rat was generally related to incomplete ossification. At higher doses, decreased fetal body weight and an increased incidence of diaphragmatic hernia were observed. In the rabbit, maternal and developmental toxicity were observed at the same dose. Maternal toxicity included abortions, weight loss, and death, and fetal toxicity included abortions, skeletal effects, and fetuses that were small and/or had cloudy eyes. In the rat reproduction and fertility study, maternal (increased liver weight, bile duct hyperplasia, geriatric nephropathy) and offspring (decreased pup viability, decreased pup body weight, and hydronephrosis) toxicity were observed at the same dose level, and decreased female fertility was observed at the highest dose.

    No immunotoxicity was observed at the highest dose tested in the immunotoxicity study in rats. Although other studies indicated effects on the immune system organs (e.g., thymus effects in the dog), all points of departure (PODs) are protective of any possible immunotoxic response. Delayed neurotoxicity was not observed in hens, and there was no evidence of toxicity in the subchronic neurotoxicity study. In the acute neurotoxicity study at the lowest dose tested (500 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)), where a bolus dose is administered by gavage, clinical signs indicative of toxicity (reduced activity, decreased rearing, hunched posture, and/or piloerection) were observed, as well as decreased motor activity (total distance and number of rearings) in both sexes. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity or mutagenicity in the toxicity profile.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fluazifop-P-butyl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document title “Fluazifop-P-butyl. Human-Health Risk Assessment for New Uses on Lettuce (Leaf and Head), Rhubarb, Green Onion, Strawberry, Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A, Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B, Fescue Grasses (Grown for Seed); and for Amendments to Existing Tolerances [Subgroups 1D, 3-07A, and 13-07F]” on page 42 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0878.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD)s and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluazifop-P-butyl used for human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

    Table—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fluazifop-P-Butyl for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and
  • uncertainty/safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for
  • risk assessment
  • Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (General population including infants and children and females 13-49 years of age) LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF (UFL) = 10x
  • Acute RfD = 0.50 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.50 mg/kg/day
  • Acute neurotoxicity—rat.
  • LOAEL = 500 mg/kg, based on clinical signs indicative of toxicity (reduced activity, decreased rearing, hunched posture and/or piloerection), and decreased motor activity (total distance and number of rearings) in both sexes.
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 0.51 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.0051 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.0051 mg/kg/day
  • Combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity—rat.
  • LOAEL = 4.15 mg/kg/day, based on increased mortality associated with increased severity of nephropathy during the first year in males.
  • Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) NOAEL = 5.8 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Reproduction—rat.
  • Offspring LOAEL = 17.5 mg/kg/day, based on decreased pup viability (both generations), decreased pup weights (↓15%) in the F2-generation, and hydronephrosis in the F1 pups.
  • Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) (General population except children) Oral study NOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption rate = 9%)
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental toxicity—rat.
  • Developmental LOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/day based on delayed ossification in skull bones, sternebrae bipartite, sternebrae partially ossified and calcenum unossified in fetuses and litters.
  • Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) (Children only) Dermal study NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 21-Day dermal toxicity in rabbits.
  • Offspring LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day based on death in 1/10 males.
  • Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) Oral study NOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%)
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF (UFDB) = 10x
  • LOC for MOE = 1,000 Developmental toxicity—rat.
  • Developmental LOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/day based on delayed ossification in skull bones, sternebrae bipartite, sternebrae partially ossified and calcenum unossified in fetuses and litters.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fluazifop-P-butyl tolerances in 40 CFR 180.411. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluazifop-P-butyl in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for fluazifop-P-butyl. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance level residues with a ratio adjustment for additional metabolites of concern.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, the Agency used mean residue levels from crop field trials with a ratio adjustment for additional metabolites of concern, average percent crop treated estimates, and experimentally determined processing factors.

    iii. Cancer. EPA has concluded that fluazifop-P-butyl does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    The Agency estimated the average PCT for existing uses as follows:

    Asparagus, 2.5%; carrots, 15%; cotton, 1%; dry beans/peas, 1%; garlic, 10%; grapefruit, 15%; grapes, 2.5%; nectarines, 1%; onions, 10%; oranges, 2.5%; peaches, 2.5%; peanuts, 1%; plums, 2.5%; potatoes, 1%, prunes, 2.5%; soybeans, 2.5%; and sugar beets, 1%.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS) and proprietary market surveys for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than 2.5%. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the most recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except for situations in which the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%. In cases where the estimated value is less than 2.5% but greater than 1%, the average and maximum PCT used are 2.5%. If the estimated value is less than 1%, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which fluazifop-P-butyl may be applied in a particular area.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for fluazifop-P-butyl in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of fluazifop-P-butyl. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) model and the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM-GW) model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fluazifop-P-butyl for acute exposures are estimated to be 56.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 6.8 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 4.41 ppb for surface water and 3.39 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 56.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 4.41 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Fluazifop-P-butyl is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Lawns/turf and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For handlers, exposure is expected as a result of application to turf and ornamentals. Post-application exposure is also expected as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with fluazifop-P-butyl.

    For adult handlers, risk estimates are presented as an aggregated risk index (ARI) since the PODs for dermal and inhalation routes of exposure are based on the same study/effects, but have different LOCs (dermal LOC = 100 and inhalation LOC = 1000). The target ARI is 1; ARIs of less than 1 are risk estimates of concern. None of the residential handler scenarios resulted in a risk estimate of concern (i.e., all ARIs ≥1).

    For post-application, only dermal and incidental oral (for kids only) exposures were assessed. Since the PODs for these routes are based on the same effects and have the same LOC, risk estimates can be combined. All residential post-application MOEs are greater than the LOC of 100, and are therefore not of concern.

    The Agency used the worst-case exposure scenarios for all population subgroups for recommendation for inclusion in the aggregate assessment. The residential exposure scenario used in the adult aggregate assessment is dermal and inhalation handler exposure from applications to gardens/trees using a backpack sprayer. The residential exposure scenario used in the youth (11 to <16 years) aggregate assessment is dermal post-application exposure from golfing on treated turf. The residential exposure scenario used in the child (6 to <11 years) aggregate assessment is dermal post-application exposure from activities in treated gardens. The residential exposure scenario used in the child (1 to <2 years) aggregate assessment reflects combined dermal plus hand-to-mouth post-application exposure from high contact activities on treated turf. The PODs for the adult dermal and inhalation routes of exposure are based on the same study and based on the same effects; however, the LOCs are different (dermal LOC = 100 and inhalation LOC = 1000). Therefore, a total aggregated risk index (ARI) was used to combine risk estimates. The aggregate risk index (ARI) is calculated as follows:

    Aggregate Risk Index (ARI) = 1 ÷ [(Dermal LOC ÷ Dermal MOE) + (Inhalation LOC ÷ Inhalation MOE)]. The target ARI is 1; ARIs of less than 1 are risk estimates of concern. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found fluazifop-P-butyl to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fluazifop-P-butyl does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fluazifop-P-butyl does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Quantitative sensitivity of the fetus was observed in the rat developmental studies in which no maternal toxicity was observed. Developmental toxicity in the rat was generally related to incomplete ossification. At higher doses, decreased fetal body weight and an increased incidence of diaphragmatic hernia were observed. In the rabbit, maternal and developmental toxicity were observed at the same dose. Maternal toxicity included abortions, weight loss, and death, and fetal toxicity included abortions, skeletal effects, and fetuses that were small and/or had cloudy eyes. In the rat reproduction and fertility study, maternal (increased liver weight, bile duct hyperplasia, geriatric nephropathy) and offspring (decreased pup viability, decreased pup body weight, and hydronephrosis) toxicity were observed at the same dose level, and decreased female fertility was observed at the highest dose.

    3. Conclusion. For acute dietary and inhalation short-term exposure scenarios, the Agency is retaining the FQPA safety factor of 10x for the use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL (acute dietary) and to account for the lack of a subchronic inhalation toxicity study (inhalation short-term). EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x for the chronic dietary, incidental oral, and dermal short-term exposure scenarios. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for fluazifop-P-butyl for assessing these scenarios is complete.

    ii. Possible signs of neurotoxicity were observed at 500 mg/kg in the acute neurotoxicity study. The clinical signs observed included reduced activity, decreased rearing, hunched posture and/or piloerection, and decreased motor activity (total distance and number of rearings) in both sexes. However, considering that this was a bolus (gavage) dose at half the limit dose, the nature of the observations and the lack of neuropathology suggests that the findings were a result of generalized toxicity rather than neurotoxicity.

    Slight increases in absolute (2.5%) and relative (1.6%) brain weights were seen in both sexes at 3,000 ppm (≉194 mg/kg/day) at termination in the carcinogenicity study in hamsters. Slight increases in brain weights were seen in female rats (2.9%) at 100 mg/kg/day and in male hamsters (4%) at 120 mg/kg/day after subchronic exposures with fluazifop-P-butyl. The toxicological significance of the marginal increases in brain weights at high doses is unknown in the absence of corroborative histopathological lesions.

    The Agency concluded that there was not a concern for neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl at relevant exposure levels. The only indication of potential neurotoxicity was due to a large (500 mg/kg) bolus dose (gavage) in the acute neurotoxicity study. No developmental or central nervous system malformations were seen in any of the developmental toxicity studies with rats or rabbits. No increased offspring sensitivity over parent was seen in the rabbit pre-natal developmental studies or in the rat post-natal reproduction study, and no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology was observed in adult animals. Although malformed fetuses were seen at high dose levels in the absence of maternal toxicity in the rat developmental toxicity studies, the definitive developmental endpoint in five developmental studies was selected based on delayed ossification and fetal weight decrement at much lower doses (100-fold lower). Therefore, the conditions were not met for requiring a developmental neurotoxicity study.

    iii. There was no indication of fetal or offspring susceptibility in rabbit developmental or rat reproduction studies. Quantitative sensitivity of the fetus was noted in the rat developmental studies as described above. However, the selected PODs are protective for all exposure scenarios where the developing fetus is of concern. Therefore, the degree of concern is low.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments include assumptions that result in high-end estimates of dietary food exposure. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fluazifop-P-butyl.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to fluazifop-P-butyl will occupy 42% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl from food and water will utilize 49% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of fluazifop-P-butyl is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Fluazifop-P-butyl is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to fluazifop-P-butyl.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate ARIs of 2.1 for adults, 51 for youths 11-16 years old, 13 for children 6-11 years old, and 1.7 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for fluazifop-P-butyl is an ARI of 1 or below, these ARIs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, fluazifop-P-butyl is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for fluazifop-P-butyl.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, fluazifop-P-butyl is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (High Performance Liquid Chromatography/Ultra-Violet Spectrometry (HPLC/UV)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established any MRLs for fluazifop-P-butyl.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The petitioner requested a tolerance of 5.0 ppm for “Lettuce, head and leaf”. This is not a standard commodity definition. Rather, the Agency is establishing separate tolerances for “Lettuce, head” and “Lettuce, leaf” at 3.0 and 5.0 ppm, respectively, as determined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) MRL calculation procedures. The caneberry subgroup 13-07A tolerance is being established at 0.08 ppm instead of 0.05 ppm as requested since two of the raspberry trials were determined not to be independent. The requested tolerances for grass forage and hay is being established as fescue forage and hay because the use requested for the corresponding pesticide registration is limited to fescue grass varieties. In addition, where appropriate, EPA has modified the numerical expression of tolerance values in order to conform to current Agency policy on significant figures.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl (2R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.30 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.08 ppm; fescue, forage at 4.0 ppm (tolerance with regional registrations); fescue, hay at 15 ppm (tolerance with regional registrations); fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.03 ppm; lettuce, head at 3.0 ppm; lettuce, leaf at 5.0 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.50 ppm; onion, green at 1.5 ppm; strawberry at 3.0 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, except potato, subgroup 1D at 1.5 ppm.

    Additionally, the existing tolerances for grape; onion, bulb; and sweet potato, roots are removed as unnecessary, since they are covered by the newly established crop group tolerances, and the tolerance with regional registrations for rhubarb at 0.5 ppm, currently under section 180.411(c), will now be listed in section 180.411(a) since it will now have a national registration.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 30, 2017. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.411: a. Add alphabetically the commodities “Bushberry subgroup 13-07B”; “Caneberry subgroup 13-07A”; and “Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F” to the table in paragraph (a); b. Remove the commodity “Grape” in the table in paragraph (a); c. Add alphabetically the commodities “Lettuce, head” and “Lettuce, leaf” to the table in paragraph (a); d. Remove the commodity “Onion, bulb” in the table in paragraph (a); e. Add alphabetically the commodities “Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A”; “Onion, green”; “Rhubarb”; and “Strawberry”; f. Remove the commodity “Sweet potato, roots” in the table in paragraph (a); g. Add alphabetically the commodity “Vegetable, tuberous and corm, except potato, subgroup 1D” to the table in paragraph (a); h. Add alphabetically the commodities “Fescue, forage”; and “Fescue, hay” to the table in paragraph (c); and i. Remove the commodity “Rhubarb” from the table in paragraph (c).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 180.411 Fluazifop-P-butyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Bushberry subgroup 13-07B 0.30 Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 0.08 *    *    *    *    * Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F 0.03 *    *    *    *    * Lettuce, head 3.0 Lettuce, leaf 5.0 *    *    *    *    * Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A 0.50 Onion, green 1.5 *    *    *    *    * Rhubarb 0.50 *    *    *    *    * Strawberry 3.0 Vegetable, tuberous and corm, except potato, subgroup 1D 1.5

    (c) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Fescue, forage 4.0 Fescue, hay 15 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2017-20748 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049; FRL-9966-68] Oxathiapiprolin; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin in or on cacao bean, dried bean. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested the tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective September 27, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 27, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of Tuesday, December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92758) (FRL-9956-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP# 6E8505) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.685 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, in or on cacao bean, bean at 0.10 parts per million (ppm); cacao bean, roasted bean at 0.15 ppm; cacao bean, chocolate at 0.15 ppm; and cacao bean, cocoa powder at 0.15 ppm. A summary of the petition prepared by IR-4 is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received on the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing tolerances that differ from what the petitioner requested including; the commodity definition, tolerance level, and for which commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for oxathiapiprolin including exposure resulting from the tolerance established by this action, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2).

    In the Federal Register of Monday, December 5, 2016 (81 FR 87463) (FRL-9954-69), EPA established tolerances for residues of oxathiapiprolin in or on several food commodities. The risk assessments supporting that action aggregated dietary and non-occupational exposures from existing and proposed uses of oxathiapiprolin, including from the exposures associated with the tolerances requested in this action. That assessment, which included the tolerances in today's action, concluded that the tolerances are safe; therefore, EPA is incorporating the findings in that Federal Register document and the supporting risk assessments as the basis for the safety finding in this tolerance rulemaking. In brief, the Agency determined that the lack of toxicity of oxathiapiprolin warranted a qualitative risk assessment, without the need for the additional Food Quality Protection Act safety factor to protect infants and children.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by oxathiapiprolin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document, “Oxathiapiprolin—New Active Ingredient Human Health Risk Assessment of Uses on Turf, Ornamentals, and a Number of Crops” dated June 25, 2015, in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049-0018. In addition, an abbreviated human health risk assessment document was developed to support the proposed uses of oxathiapiprolin on multiple crops, including cacao. That document, “SUBJECT: Oxathiapiprolin. Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the Registration of New Uses of the Fungicide on Various Crops” dated October 31, 2016 is available in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049-0017.

    In conclusion, based on the findings of the December 5, 2016 Federal Register document and the supporting documents, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to oxathiapiprolin residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Method 30422 (Supplement No. 1) was developed for plant commodities, and Method 31138 was developed for livestock commodities. Residues of oxathiapiprolin and associated metabolites are extracted from crop or livestock commodity samples using a solution of formic acid, water and acetonitrile, and diluted with acetonitrile and water. Both methods use liquid chromotography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS), specifically reverse-phase liquid chromatography (LC), and detection by electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS).

    The FDA multi-residue methods are not suitable for detection and enforcement of oxathiapiprolin residues or associated metabolites. However, the European Multiresidue Method (DFG Method S19) and the QuEChERS Multiresidue Method have shown success in some matrices.

    Adequate enforcement methodology (LC/MS/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch/BEAD/OPP, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for oxathiapiprolin.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    A tolerance is established for “Cacao bean, dried bean”, rather than “Cacao bean, bean”, to comply with current Agency crop-naming policy. Also, EPA determined that tolerances for residues of oxathiapiprolin in or on the processed commodities of cacao bean, roasted bean; cacao bean, chocolate; and cacao bean, cocoa powder are unnecessary because these commodities are covered by cacao bean, dried bean tolerance. Finally, the tolerance for cacao bean, dried bean is being established at 0.15 ppm, rather than at 0.1 ppm as requested, based on the available residue data.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, in or on cacao bean, dried bean at 0.15 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 29, 2017. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.685, redesignate paragraph (a)(1) as paragraph (a) and add alphabetically the following commodity “Cacao bean, dried bean” to the table in paragraph (a) in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 180.685 Oxathiapiprolin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Cacao bean, dried bean 0.15 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2017-20747 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0085] RIN 2127-AL68 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NHTSA is issuing this final rule to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, “Electric-powered vehicles: Electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection,” to adopt various electrical safety requirements found in Global Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 13, “Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles,” and other sources. This final rule updates FMVSS No. 305 using modern and harmonized safety requirements and facilitates the introduction of new technologies, including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies. This final rule is a deregulatory action. It imposes no costs and adjusts FMVSS No. 305 to give more flexibility to manufacturers not only to use modern electrical safety designs to produce electric vehicles, but also to introduce new technologies to the U.S. market. To expand FMVSS No. 305's performance requirements beyond post-crash conditions, NHTSA adopts electrical safety requirements to protect against direct and indirect contact of high voltage sources during everyday operation of electric-powered vehicles. Also, NHTSA adopts an optional method of meeting post-crash electrical safety requirements, consistent with that in GTR No. 13, involving use of physical barriers to prevent direct or indirect contact (by occupants, emergency services personnel and others) with high voltage sources.

    DATES:

    Effective date: This final rule is effective September 27, 2017.

    Compliance date: The compliance date for the amendments in this final rule is September 27, 2018. Optional early compliance is permitted.

    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received not later than November 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical issues, you may call William J. Sánchez, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-493-0248) (fax: 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992) (fax: 202-366-3820). Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Executive Summary a. Overview b. Summary of the Final Rule and Highlighted Differences With the NPRM 1. Every Day (Normal) Vehicle Operations i. Direct Contact Protection From High Voltage Sources ii. Indirect Contact Protection From High Voltage Sources iii. Electrical Isolation of High Voltage Sources iv. Monitoring Systems v. Electrical Safety During Charging vi. Mitigating Driver Error 2. Post-Crash Safety i. Direct and Indirect Contact Protection From High Voltage Sources ii. Electrical Isolation 3. Definitions, Figures, and Test Procedures 4. Compliance Date II. Background a. Overview of the GTR Process b. Overview of GTR No. 13 c. Physical Barrier Option d. Petitions for Rulemaking III. Overview of the Comments IV. Response to the Comments a. Definitions and Terminology (General) b. Clarification of Application of Requirements c. Electrical Safety for Connectors and the Vehicle Charge Inlet d. Markings e. Indirect Contact Protection f. Electrical Isolation Requirements g. Electrical Safety During Charging h. Mitigating Driver Error i. Test Procedures and Figures in FMVSS No. 305 j. Compliance Date V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary a. Overview

    NHTSA is issuing this final rule to update FMVSS No. 305, “Electric-powered vehicles: Electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.” As indicated in its title, one purpose of FMVSS No. 305 is to reduce deaths and injuries from electrical shock. Currently, the standard focuses on post-crash safety, requiring vehicles with high voltage sources to protect vehicle occupants, rescue workers and others who may contact the vehicle after a crash. To protect against electric shock, FMVSS No. 305 currently requires that, during and after the crash tests specified in the standard, high voltage sources in the vehicle must be either (a) electrically isolated from the vehicle's chassis 1 or (b) their voltage must be at levels considered safe from harmful electric shock.2 This final rule amends the standard to adopt a physical barrier compliance option that prevents direct and indirect contact 3 of high voltage sources post-crash by way of “electrical protection barriers.” An electrical protection barrier is a physical barrier that encloses a high voltage source to prevent direct contact (by occupants, emergency services personnel and others) of the high voltage source from any direction of access.

    1 Since the physiological impacts of direct current (DC) are less than those of alternating current (AC), the standard specifies lower minimum electrical isolation requirements for DC high voltage sources with electrical isolation monitoring systems (100 ohms/volt) than for AC components (500 ohms/volt).

    2 Under this low voltage option, electrical components are low voltage if their voltage is less than or equal to 60 VDC or 30 VAC. VDC is the voltage for direct current sources and VAC is voltage for alternating current sources. These low voltage levels will not cause electric shock.

    3 Contact of a conductive part that is energized due to loss of electrical isolation of a high voltage source is an indirect contact of a high voltage source.

    This final rule is a deregulatory action as it imposes no costs and adjusts FMVSS No. 305 to give more flexibility to manufacturers not only for current electric vehicle designs, but also for introducing new technologies to the U.S. market, including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies. In adopting the physical barrier option, this final rule adjusts the standard to remove an obstruction that prevented HFCVs from being offered for sale in the U.S. Adopting the physical barrier option also enables manufacturers to produce 48-volt mild hybrid systems without having to use electrical isolation safety measures that involve more complexity, higher consumer costs, and higher mass, without an incremental safety benefit. This rule responds to petitions for rulemaking from Toyota Motor North America Inc. (Toyota) 4 and the Auto Alliance (Alliance).5

    4 Petitioner Toyota requested the physical barrier option to allow HFCVs to be offered for sale in the U.S. After its submission of the petition for rulemaking, Toyota pursued and was granted a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 305 for an HFCV (see grant of petition, January 2, 2015 (80 FR 101)). Toyota incorporates electrical protection barriers (conductively connected to the electric chassis with low resistance) and maintains at least a 100 ohms/volt electrical isolation into its design. NHTSA granted the petition for exemption on the basis that the exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low emission (zero emission) vehicle easier and would not unreasonably reduce the safety of the vehicle.

    5 Petitioner Alliance requested the physical barrier option to facilitate the production of 48volt mild hybrid technologies as well as HFCVs.

    NHTSA is also issuing this final rule as part of the agency's ongoing effort to avoid unnecessary differences in the vehicle safety standards of different countries through a harmonization process under the United Nation Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 1998 Global Agreement (“1998 Agreement”). The efforts of the U.S.6 and other contracting parties to the 1998 Agreement culminated in the establishment of GTR No. 13, “Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles.” NHTSA voted in June 2013 in favor of establishing GTR No. 13.7 This final rule adopts requirements based on the electrical safety requirements of GTR No. 13.8

    6 The U.S. was one of several contracting parties to the 1998 Agreement that proposed the development and establishment of GTR No. 13.

    7 Each Contracting Party that voted for a new GTR that has been established under the 1998 Agreement is obligated by that Agreement to initiate its process for adopting the GTR into national law. However, the Agreement does not obligate such a Contracting Party to adopt the GTR. The Contracting Party retains full discretion under the Agreement to decide for itself whether to adopt the GTR.

    8 NHTSA is considering initiating rulemaking in the future on other aspects of GTR No. 13 directly pertaining to the fuel system integrity of HFCVs.

    Similar to FMVSS No. 305, GTR No. 13 has requirements intended to reduce deaths and injuries from electrical shock, but addresses both normal vehicle operation and post-crash safety. Also, while the various post-crash compliance options in GTR No. 13 are like those in FMVSS No. 305, GTR No. 13 includes the physical barrier option to prevent direct and indirect contact 9 of high voltage sources.

    9 Contact of a conductive part that is energized due to loss of electrical isolation of a high voltage source is an indirect contact of a high voltage source.

    On March 10, 2016, NHTSA issued the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on which this final rule is based (81 FR 12647). The NPRM proposed adopting GTR No. 13's normal vehicle operation requirements, and proposed adopting a post-crash physical barrier compliance option like that in GTR No. 13.

    Comments on the NPRM were generally supportive of the proposed changes. Some commenters requested modifying the proposed regulatory text to clarify the wording of requirements and test procedures or to align the text with GTR No. 13 and ECE R.100, “Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to specific requirements for the electric power train,” and some suggested NHTSA should not adopt some requirements for lack of safety need.

    This final rule adopts most aspects of the proposal, with some parts changed in response to commenters. The final rule improves motor vehicle safety by expanding FMVSS No. 305's protections to normal vehicle operations. The updated post-crash performance requirements ensure that new power train configurations provide a comparable level of post-crash safety as that of existing electric vehicles.

    This final rule reflects the state-of-the art in vehicle electrical safety. It draws from the findings from the agency's research on the physical barrier compliance option in GTR No. 13 (Battelle study),10 ECE R.100, and the electrical safety requirements in a January 2014 version of SAE J1766.11

    10 NHTSA contracted with the Battelle Memorial Research Institute to research failure modes associated with physical barriers that could result in electric shock. Battelle identified different scenarios involving failure of electrical isolation, direct contact protection, or indirect contact protection and a combination of failure of two or more these protection measures. Battelle then evaluated the possibility of electric shock in each of these scenarios. Battelle's evaluation noted that multiple failures in protection measures were needed for a person to experience electric shock. The final report is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2016-0029-0003.

    11 SAE J1766, “Recommended practice for electric, fuel cell, and hybrid electric vehicle crash integrity testing,” January 2014, SAE International, http://www.sae.org.

    The rule not only gives more flexibility to manufacturers to use modern electrical safety designs to produce electric vehicles and introduce new vehicle technologies, but also paves the way globally for future innovations on vehicle electrical safety. A new GTR is under development 12 for electric vehicle safety (EVS-GTR) which includes specifications for high voltage electrical components and rechargeable electric energy storage systems. In November 2016, NHTSA and other parties developing the new draft GTR completed the document's high voltage electrical safety provisions. The parties designed the draft GTR to reflect the provisions of GTR No. 13, ECE R.100, and the requirements proposed in the March 2016 NPRM and adopted by this final rule.

    12 In November 2011, the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement established a working group to develop a GTR for electric vehicle safety. The United States is a co-chair of this working group, along with the European Union, Japan, and China. See, draft Global Technical Regulation on Electric Vehicle Safety, September 2016. https://www2.unece.org/wiki/display/trans/EVS+12th+session.

    We estimate that the final rule will result in essentially no cost to consumers in the U.S. This rule adopts requirements that closely mirror the electrical safety provisions of GTR No. 13, which have already been implemented by manufacturers in this country.

    b. Summary of the Final Rule and Highlighted Differences With the NPRM

    This section summarizes the requirements adopted by this final rule. For the convenience of the reader, we also note the few notable differences between this rule and the NPRM. The reasons underlying our decisions are explained in the body of this preamble and in the NPRM.

    1. Every Day (Normal) Vehicle Operations

    This final rule adds electrical safety requirements for vehicle performance during every day (normal) vehicle operations to mitigate the risk of electric shock due to direct or indirect contact of high voltage sources or loss in electrical isolation. We also adopt requirements to assure electrical safety during refueling and to mitigate driver error in vehicle operation.

    i. Direct Contact Protection From High Voltage Sources

    The rule specifies:

    A. IPXXD protection degree for high voltage sources inside passenger and luggage compartments, and IPXXB protection degree for high voltage sources outside passenger and luggage compartments.13

    13 IPXXB and IPXXD “protection degrees” refer to the ability of the physical barriers to prevent entrance of a probe into the barrier, to ensure no direct contact with high voltage sources. “IPXXB” is a probe representing a small human finger. “IPXXD” is a slender wire probe. Protection degrees IPXXB and IPXXD are International Electrotechnical Commission specifications for protection from direct contact of high voltage sources.

    B. IPXXB protection degree for service disconnects that can be opened or removed without tools.14

    14 A service disconnect is a device for deactivation of an electrical circuit when conducting checks and services of the electric battery, fuel cell stack, or other high voltage source.

    C. Markings on certain electrical protection barriers of high voltage sources (i.e., barriers that can be physically accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools) and on or near electric energy storage devices. As to the latter, the NPRM also proposed to require markings on or near electric energy conversion devices (fuel cells), but the agency concludes conversion devices are benign in and of themselves in that they are not high density energy sources. Thus, conversion devices do not need to be marked. (Note that the electric protection barrier around a fuel cell is required to be marked.) In another change from the NPRM, markings are not required on electrical connectors and on the vehicle charge inlet 15 because of a lack of a need for the markings.

    15 The vehicle charge inlet is the device on the electric vehicle into which the charge connector is inserted for the purpose of transferring energy and exchanging information from an external electric power supply.

    D. In a change from the NPRM, this rule has distinct direct contact protection requirements for connectors and the vehicle charge inlet. First, it requires that the IPXXB/IPXXD protection levels be met by each connector when connected to its mating component. IPXXD protection degree is required for connectors located inside the passenger and luggage compartments. IPXXB protection degree is required for connectors and vehicle charge inlets located outside these compartments. Second, connectors must meet at least one of the following three requirements: (1) If a connector or vehicle charge inlet can be separated from its mating component without the use of tools, the IPXXB/IPXXD protection level must be provided when the connector is uncoupled from its mating component; (2) if a connector or vehicle charge inlet can be separated from its mating component without the use of tools, the voltage of live parts of the connector or vehicle charge inlet becomes less than or equal to 60 VDC or 30 VAC within one second of separating from its mating component; or, (3) the connector has a locking mechanism (at least two distinct actions are needed to separate the connector from its mating component), and there are other components that must be removed to separate the connector from its mating component and these cannot be removed without the use of tools.

    E. This rule requires orange color outer coverings for cables of high voltage sources that are located outside electrical protection barriers.

    ii. Indirect Contact Protection From High Voltage Sources

    This rule requires exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers to be conductively connected to the chassis with a resistance less than 0.1 ohms, and the resistance between two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are within 2.5 meters of each other must be less than 0.2 ohms.16

    16 This ensures that in the event of loss in electrical isolation, no dangerous voltage potentials are produced between exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers and the electrical chassis, and therefore very low levels of current would flow through a human body contacting different parts of the vehicle. Since current flows through the path of least resistance, most of the current flow will be through the chassis than through the human body which has a significantly higher resistance.

    iii. Electrical Isolation of High Voltage Sources

    A. This rule requires 500 ohms/volt or higher electrical isolation for AC high voltage sources and 100 ohms/volt or higher for DC high voltage sources.

    B. Where AC and DC buses are connected, this rule permits AC high voltage sources to have electrical isolation of 100 ohms/volt or higher, provided they also have the direct and indirect contact protection described in i and ii, above.

    iv. Monitoring Systems

    This rule requires an electrical isolation monitoring system for DC high voltage sources on fuel cell vehicles.

    v. Electrical Safety During Charging

    This final rule requires:

    A. Electrical isolation greater than or equal to 500 ohms/volt between the electrical chassis and other high voltage sources connected to the vehicle charge inlet (for connecting to the AC external power supply). Note that this is a change from the 1 million ohms isolation resistance requirement proposed in the NPRM.

    B. IPXXB/IPXXD protection level for the vehicle charge inlet when connected to the charge connector and IPXXB/IPXXD protection level or low voltage when separated from the charge connector.

    C. Conductive connection of the electric chassis to earth ground before and during the application of exterior voltage to the vehicle.17

    17 Current will flow through the path of least resistance and therefore most of the current resulting from a loss of electrical isolation would flow through the ground connection rather than through the human body.

    vi. Mitigating Driver Error

    This final rule includes requirements for—

    A. Providing at least a momentary indication to the driver when the vehicle is first placed in “possible active driving mode” after manual activation of the propulsion system.18 This is a change from the NPRM to clarify when the momentary indication must be provided.

    18 Vehicles with an internal combustion engine that directly or indirectly provides the vehicle's propulsion power on start up are excluded from this requirement.

    B. Informing the driver if the vehicle is still in a possible active driving mode,19 by an audible or visual signal when he or she leaves the vehicle; and,

    19 I.e., the vehicle mode when application of pressure to the accelerator pedal or release of the brake system causes the electric power train to move the vehicle.

    C. Preventing vehicle movement of more than 150 millimeters (mm) by its own propulsion system when the vehicle charging system is connected to the external electric power supply in such a way that charging is possible. (The 150 mm limit is a change from the NPRM, which did not specify a distance.)

    2. Post-Crash Safety

    This final rule also amends FMVSS No. 305's post-crash electrical safety requirements.

    i. Direct and Indirect Contact Protection From High Voltage Sources

    The rule adds an optional method of meeting post-crash electrical safety requirements through physical barrier protection of high voltage sources. The specifications of this optional method of electric safety include requirements ensuring that:

    A. High voltage sources are enclosed in barriers that prevent direct human contact with high voltage sources (IPXXB protection level),

    B. Exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers are conductively connected to the chassis with a resistance less than 0.1 ohms. The resistance between any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other must be less than 0.2 ohms.

    C. Voltage between exposed conductive parts of an electrical protection barrier and the electrical chassis, and between two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier that are less than 2.5 meters from each other, must be less than or equal to 60 VDC or 30 VAC (low voltage). (The NPRM was worded to apply this requirement to voltage between any exposed conductive parts of the vehicle.)

    ii. Electrical Isolation

    An AC high voltage source that is conductively connected to a DC high voltage source may meet an electrical isolation requirement of 100 ohms/volt or greater, provided the AC high voltage source also has physical barrier protection specified in i(A) and i(B), above.20 (The NPRM had proposed requiring all three elements i(A), i(B), and i(C) of physical barrier protection for such AC high voltage sources.)

    20 I.e., they provide IPXXB protection degree and indirect contact protection of resistance between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier and electric chassis of 0.1 ohms and between two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts within 2.5 meters of each other of 0.2 ohms.

    3. Definitions, Figures, and Test Procedures

    We make minor changes to a number of proposed definitions to clarify the standard and to achieve consistency with other definitions. We adopt terms such as “high voltage live parts,” “exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers,” and “possible active driving mode” in place of proposed terms that were less clear.

    We make a minor correction to Figure 7b and clarify Figure 8.

    We clarify several test procedures, including how we will use the IPXXB and IPXXD protection degree probes and how we determine the voltage between various conductive parts. We provide manufacturers the option of choosing between two methods for measuring resistance, and, in a change from the NPRM, provide that resistance between two exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier may be computed from measured resistances.

    4. Compliance Date

    The compliance date for this final rule is one year from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Optional early compliance is permitted. (The NPRM proposed a compliance date of 180 days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.)

    II. Background a. Overview of the GTR Process

    The United States is a contracting party to the 1998 Agreement, which was entered into force in 2000 and is administered by the UN ECE's Working Party (WP).29. The purpose of this agreement is to establish GTRs.

    GTR No. 13 addresses hydrogen fuel cell vehicle technology. NHTSA closely collaborated with experts from contracting parties to the 1998 Agreement, particularly Germany and Japan, to develop a GTR for hydrogen fueled vehicles that establishes levels of safety that are equivalent to or exceeds those for conventional gasoline fueled vehicles. The collaborative effort in this process led to the establishment of GTR No. 13 in June 2013.

    The U.S. voted on June 27, 2013 in favor of establishing GTR No. 13. In voting yes to establishing the GTR, NHTSA is obligated to submit the technical regulation to the process used in the U.S. to adopt the requirement into our law or regulation.21 By issuance of the March 10, 2016 NPRM preceding this final rule, NHTSA initiated the process for considering adoption of GTR No. 13.

    21 As noted above, under the terms of the 1998 Agreement, NHTSA is not obligated to adopt the GTR after initiating this process. In deciding whether to adopt a GTR as an FMVSS, we follow the requirements for NHTSA rulemaking, including the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act) (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) Presidential Executive Orders, and DOT and NHTSA policies, procedures and regulations. Among other things, FMVSSs issued under the Vehicle Safety Act “shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.” 49 U.S.C. 30111.

    This final rule addresses the electrical safety requirements in GTR No. 13 (i.e., the electrical isolation requirements, physical barrier requirements, etc.) and not GTR No. 13's hydrogen fuel system and fuel container integrity requirements. NHTSA will commence a separate proceeding on incorporating the latter portions of GTR No. 13 into the relevant FMVSSs.

    b. Overview of GTR No. 13

    HFCVs have an electric drive-train powered by a fuel cell that generates electric power electrochemically using hydrogen. The hydrogen is electrochemically combined with oxygen (from air) within the fuel cell system to produce high-voltage electric power. The electric power is supplied to the electric drive motors and/or used to charge batteries and capacitors. HFCVs may also be equipped with batteries to supplement the output of fuel cells and may also recapture energy during stopping through regenerative braking, which recharges batteries and thereby improves efficiency.

    The fuel cell provides DC power while the drive motors typically operate on AC. Therefore, the power train has: (a) Inverters to convert DC power to AC to run the motors and (b) converters to convert AC power generated in the drive motor during regenerative braking to DC to store energy in the batteries. In many respects, the electric power train of an HFCV is like that of electric and hybrid electric vehicles.

    GTR No. 13 specifies electrical safety requirements during normal vehicle operation and after a crash test, to protect against electric shock in the event of a failure in the high voltage propulsion system. GTR No. 13 includes a compliance option for electrical vehicle safety that prevents direct and indirect contact of high voltage sources by way of “physical barriers.” 22

    22 A detailed description of GTR No. 13 can be found in the NPRM. See 81 FR at 12651-12654.

    c. Physical Barrier Option

    The industry has long requested NHTSA to adopt a physical barrier option into FMVSS No. 305. In 2010, NHTSA decided against adoption of a physical barrier option because the agency believed not enough was known about the option.23 Commenters to an NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 305's electrical shock protection requirements had asked NHTSA to adopt the option in the final rule. NHTSA declined the request,24 explaining that (a) sufficient notice might not have been provided for the provision, (b) the agency was uncertain whether the option would sufficiently account for indirect contact failure modes, and (c) the agency wished to pursue research on this safety approach. NHTSA undertook a research program (later known as the Battelle study, discussed in detail in the NPRM, 81 FR at 12656-12659) to better understand the issues related to a physical barrier option for electrical safety.

    23 See final rule, 75 FR 33515, June 14, 2010; response to petitions for reconsideration, 76 FR 45436, July 29, 2011.

    24Id.

    Since that decision in 2010, several milestones ensued. GTR No. 13 was established, a product of shared data and knowledge from governing bodies and international experts around the world. The Battelle study was completed and the physical barrier countermeasure design was made more robust in response to its findings, with SAE International revising SAE J1766 in January 2014 to set forth more protective safety practices than it had before. Importantly, there have now been years of worldwide recognition of the physical barrier option as an acceptable means of providing electrical safety in electric powered vehicles, with years of experience in design labs and in the field showing no evidence of associated safety problems.

    d. Petitions for Rulemaking

    This final rule responds not only to GTR No. 13 but also to petitions for rulemaking from Toyota and the Alliance. The petitions are discussed in detail in the March 10, 2016 NPRM. See 81 FR at 12659-12663.

    Petitioner Toyota believes that an additional compliance option that includes elements of the physical barrier option in GTR No. 13 is needed to allow HFCVs to be offered for sale in the U.S.

    HFCVs and other electric powered vehicles operate with their DC high voltage sources (e.g. high voltage battery) connected to the AC high voltage sources (e.g. electric motor). In a moderate to severe crash (e.g., crash speeds at which an air bag would deploy), electric powered vehicles are generally designed with an automatic disconnect mechanism that activates and breaks the conductive link between the electrical energy storage system and the rest of the power train. Under these crash conditions in which an automatic disconnect mechanism activates, Toyota states that its HFCVs would be able to meet the current electrical safety requirements of FMVSS No. 305. However, in low speed crashes where the automatic disconnect mechanism is not designed to activate—so that the vehicle can be driven away after a minor crash (fender-bender)—Toyota states that its HFCVs would not be able to meet the electrical safety requirements in FMVSS No. 305. The electrical isolation for fuel cell stacks would need to be 500 ohms/volt or greater to comply with FMVSS No. 305, which may not be technically feasible. The petitioner believes that the additional compliance option requested in its petition would solve this problem and would not cause any reduction in the level of electrical safety now required by FMVSS No. 305.

    Petitioner Alliance requests a physical barrier compliance option to facilitate the production of 48-volt mild hybrid technologies as well as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The petitioner asks NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 305 to adopt a physical barrier option incorporated in the SAE J1766 January 2014,25 section 5.3.4, for 48-volt mild hybrid systems. The Alliance believes that the provisions for physical barriers in section 5.3.4 incorporate the requirements of GTR No. 13 and provide for physical barriers that ensure equal levels of safety as that afforded by the current FMVSS No. 305 electrical safety requirements.

    25 SAE J1766, “Recommended practice for electric, fuel cell, and hybrid electric vehicle crash integrity testing,” January 2014, SAE International, http://www.sae.org.

    The Alliance states that while vehicles with 48-volt mild hybrid systems use mostly low-voltage components that do not present any danger of harmful electric shock, AC voltage sources contained within the system can exceed the 30 volt threshold in FMVSS No. 305 for consideration as a high voltage source. Since these systems are grounded to the vehicle chassis, they cannot meet FMVSS No. 305's existing electrical isolation option. The petitioner states that, while it is feasible to design a 48-volt mild hybrid system that is isolated from the chassis and meets FMVSS No. 305's electrical isolation requirements, such designs involve more complexity, higher consumer costs, and higher mass resulting in reduced fuel economy and increased emissions. The petitioner believes that these consequences are inappropriate when there would be no incremental safety benefit gained beyond that associated with SAE J1766's physical barrier option.

    III. Overview of the Comments

    NHTSA received six comments on the NPRM. Comments were received from two motor vehicle manufacturer associations (the Alliance and the Association of Global Automakers (Global)), three vehicle manufacturers (Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (Mercedes-Benz), Tesla Motors Inc. (Tesla), and Fuji Heavy Industries on behalf of Subaru of America Inc. (Subaru)), and one individual.

    The commenters strongly support that FMVSS No. 305 should include requirements for normal vehicle operation and incorporate a physical barrier option for electrical safety. They request changes to the proposed regulatory text to improve clarity of or correct wording and to align the regulatory language, including definitions, to that in GTR No. 13 and ECE R.100. Some commenters suggest NHTSA not adopt or reduce the stringency of particular requirements for lack of safety need, such as the marking of connectors and the vehicle charge inlet, and a “one million ohms” isolation requirement for charging electrical energy storage devices. Several commenters suggest NHTSA adopt separate performance requirements for connectors and for the vehicle inlet, that include direct contact protection when connected and separated from its mating component. Some commenters request NHTSA change how the agency will conduct compliance tests, such as by limiting the number of resistance and voltage measurements between exposed conductive parts. Several commenters request the compliance date for the amendments be longer than 180 days.

    IV. Response to the Comments a. Definitions and Terminology (General)

    Commenters request modifications to certain definitions and terms generally used in the regulatory text. The Alliance believes that the definition of “exposed conductive part” should be revised to clarify that the part is not normally energized (that energization can occur under a fault condition). The Alliance also requests replacing the term, “exposed conductive parts” in the regulatory text with “exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers,” so as to exclude conductive parts that are not part of the electrical protection barriers and the electric power train, such as hose clamps. Similarly, Global suggests the term be replaced with “exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier enclosing the high voltage source,” throughout the regulatory text. Commenters suggest “electrical barriers,” should be replaced with “electrical protection barriers,” in the regulatory text for consistency and to reduce ambiguity. The Alliance requests a broadened definition for “external electric power supply,” to refer to “electric energy storage device,” in part because the proposed definition uses the term “propulsion battery,” which is not defined. The Alliance requests replacing the term, “live parts” with “high voltage live parts” in the regulatory text since electrical safety requirements apply to high voltage sources.

    NHTSA reviewed these comments and generally agrees with revising the definitions and terms at issue, to clarify the text of FMVSS No. 305. We summarized our decisions in Table 1 and have incorporated appropriate changes into the regulatory text.

    The Alliance asks that we amend the definition of “high voltage source” to make clear that a component is a high voltage source based on its working voltage. The current definition states: “High voltage source means any electric component contained in the electric power train or conductively connected to the electric power train that has a working voltage greater than 30 VAC or 60 VDC.” The commenter states that the definition can be read in two different ways because “it is not clear if the component or the electric power train is being modified by the given voltage limits.” (Emphasis in text.) NHTSA's intent was to modify the “component.” 26 We have clarified the definition in the regulatory text.

    26 In FMVSS No. 305, an electric component that is contained in the electric power train or is conductively connected to it is considered to be a high voltage source if its working voltage is greater than 30 VAC or 60 VDC. Working voltage is defined in FMVSS No. 305 as the highest root mean square voltage of the voltage source, which may occur across its terminals or between its terminals and any conductive parts in open circuit conditions or under normal operating conditions. Therefore, the reference to working voltage in the definition of “high voltage source” in FMVSS No. 305 is that for the electrical component and not the power train.

    The Alliance and Global point out that the definition of luggage compartment mistakenly refers to “protecting the power train” instead of “protecting the occupant.” We note that the definition's reference to “hood” should also refer to “trunk lid,” as in the U.S. luggage compartments are usually thought of as trunks, which are thought to have “trunk lids.” We have made the corrections in the text.

    The Alliance requests adding a definition for the term “connector,” assuming NHTSA will adopt separate electrical safety requirements for connectors (this issue is discussed in a section below). The Alliance states that a connector is a device that provides mechanical connection and disconnection of high voltage electrical conductors to a suitable mating component, including its housing. Since this final rule adopts such separate requirements for connectors, the agency agrees to add a definition for “connector” to the regulatory text.

    The Alliance states that “electric energy storage device” in proposed S5.4.3.2 is too specific and thereby restrictive, and that “electric circuit” should be used instead. We concur the proposed term is overly specific, but since “electric circuit” is not used or defined in FMVSS No. 305, we will use “electric component” in place of the term at issue.27

    27 The term, “electric component,” is currently used in the definition of a “high voltage source” in FMVSS No. 305.

    Subaru requests clarification of the meaning of the term “normal vehicle operation.” Subaru asks whether the term refers to anytime the vehicle is being driven under its own power or to any vehicle operation when no system faults or abnormalities are present. Subaru asks whether the reference to normal vehicle operation in the definition of the term, “live parts,” 28 includes the vehicle's driving under its own electric power and static charging modes.

    28 The NPRM proposed to define live part to mean a conductive part of the vehicle that is electrically energized under normal vehicle operation (S4).

    NHTSA believes that “normal vehicle operation” includes operating modes and conditions that can reasonably be encountered during typical operation of the vehicle, such as driving, parking and standing in traffic, as well as, charging using chargers that are compatible with the specific charging ports installed on the vehicle. It does not include conditions where the vehicle is damaged, either by a crash or road debris, subjected to fire or water submersion, or in a state where service and or maintenance is needed or being performed.

    The Alliance, Global and Subaru ask about adding a definition for an “enclosure,” since in the NPRM the agency used the term “enclosure” as though an enclosure was distinct from an electrical protection barrier. We meant the terms to be synonymous. However, rather than add the definition, for simplicity we have removed the term “enclosure” from the standard and only use the term “electrical protection barrier.”

    For the convenience of the reader, Table 1 below shows the notable added and revised terms.

    Table 1—Notable Terms and Definitions the Commenters Ask To Be Added or Amended; NHTSA Response Term at issue Requested change Reason for request Does NHTSA agree NHTSA response Connector NHTSA should define the term 29 Clarity; enables distinct requirements for “connectors” Yes Defining the term will clarify the standard. Electrical barriers Use “electrical protection barriers” Consistency and reduces ambiguity Yes NHTSA agrees the same term should be used throughout the standard. Electrical protection barrier Change the NPRM's definition to make clear the term includes “enclosures” Clarity No See “enclosure” (below). The change is unnecessary. Enclosure NHTSA should define the term This term should be defined since it is used several times No, the change is unnecessary Revised the text to remove references to “enclosure” and use electrical protection barrier instead. Exposed conductive part Add to the NPRM's definition to clarify that the part is not normally energized; Use “exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier” 30 Clarify that the part is not normally energized; energization can occur under fault condition. This also excludes conductive parts that are not part of the electric power train, such as hose clamps Yes NHTSA concurs, to clarify the standard. Also, we clarify the term “cover” in the definition. NHTSA agrees to replace “exposed conductive part,” with “exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier,” in the standard. External electric power supply Revise definition to refer to “electric energy storage device” rather than to “propulsion battery” To improve accuracy of the definition Yes The change clarifies the standard. High voltage source Revise definition as “means any electric component which is contained in the electric power train or conductively connected to the electric power train and has a working voltage greater than 30 VAC or 60 VDC” Should make clearer what is being modified Yes We agree the change clarifies the standard. Live parts Use “High voltage live parts” To clarify the applicability of the term Yes Clarifies the standard. Luggage compartment Correct the reference to “power train” Correction Yes We correct the error, and add “trunk lid.” Normal vehicle operation NHTSA should clarify the term To clarify if it includes driving and charging modes Yes We clarify the term in the preamble. Electric energy storage device (specific to
  • S5.4.3.2)
  • Use “electric circuit” Term is too specific and restrictive Yes, but use “electric component” “Electric circuit” is not defined.
    b. Clarification of Application of Requirements

    29 The Alliance suggests “a connector is a device that provides mechanical connection and disconnection of high voltage electrical conductors to a suitable mating component, including its housing.” This definition was suggested by the Alliance and added in the draft EVS-GTR available at https://www2.unece.org/wiki/display/trans/EVS+13th+session.

    30 Similar to the Alliance's request, Global requests replacing “exposed conductive part” with “exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier enclosing the high voltage source” in the regulatory text. Due to the similarity with the Alliance's request and because there is no need to specify that electrical protection barriers enclose high voltage sources, Global's request was not adopted in the final rule.

    The Alliance requests we add paragraphs to the regulatory text explicitly stating that the electrical safety requirements (S5.3) and the monitoring system requirement (S5.4) of FMVSS No. 305 do not apply to the DC part of a 48-volt mild hybrid system. (This pertains to the DC part that is conductively connected to the electrical chassis and that has a working voltage less than or equal to 60 VDC, and the maximum voltage between the DC live part and any other live part is less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC.) The commenter states that the draft EVS-GTR includes such a statement.

    We do not believe there is a need for such a provision in FMVSS No. 305, for several reasons.

    First, as discussed in a previous section, we are amending the definition of “high voltage source,” as the Alliance requests, to make clear that a component is a high voltage source based on its working voltage. That change provides the clarification the commenter seeks.

    Second, the Alliance asks that NHTSA provide in the preamble the following statement for further clarification. The commenter's statement is: “Where electrical circuits, that are galvanically connected to each other, and fulfilling the condition, that the maximum voltage between a DC live part and any other live part (DC or AC) is less [than] or equal [to] 30 VAC and 60 VDC, only the components or parts of the electric circuit that operate on high voltage are classified as high voltage sources.” We concur that the statement is consistent with NHTSA's intent.

    Third, the agency does not believe the above-quoted text is needed in FMVSS No. 305 because of a fundamental difference between the standard and the draft EVS-GTR. (This difference also exists between FMVSS No. 305 and GTR No. 13 and ECE R.100.) The electrical safety requirements in FMVSS No. 305 apply to each high voltage source in the power train, while the electrical safety requirements in the draft EVS-GTR would apply to high voltage buses and electric circuits. This means that NHTSA determines whether the electrical safety requirements of FMVSS No. 305 apply to electric components that are connected to or part of the electric power train by individually assessing each component separately, analyzing its working voltage.31 To illustrate, in a 48-volt mild hybrid system, NHTSA will assess the working voltage of each DC component. If the working voltage of the component is not greater than 60 VDC, NHTSA does not subject it to the electrical safety requirements in FMVSS No. 305, regardless of whether it is galvanically connected to other electrical components that would be considered high voltage sources.32 Accordingly, the additional text for excluding the DC part of 48-volt mild hybrid systems from electrical safety requirements requested by the Alliance is not necessary in FMVSS No. 305.

    31 Working voltage is defined in FMVSS No. 305 as the highest root mean square voltage of the voltage source which may occur across its terminals or between its terminals and any conductive part in open circuit conditions or under normal operating systems.

    32 In contrast, the draft EVS-GTR applies to high voltage buses and electric circuits. In a 48-volt mild hybrid system, the DC electrical sources are low voltage (working voltage is less than or equal to 60 VDC). The DC high voltage sources are conductively connected to AC electrical components such as the motor than can be a high voltage source (working voltage is greater than 30 VAC). Since the EVS draft GTR applies to high voltage buses and circuits, the electrical safety requirements for the high voltage source in a 48-volt system would also apply to the DC source though it is considered low voltage. For this reason, specific statements are needed in the EVS GTR to exclude these low voltage sources from electrical safety requirements that are intended for high voltage sources.

    c. Electrical Safety for Connectors and the Vehicle Charge Inlet

    GTR No. 13 specifies direct contact protection requirements for high voltage connectors separately. Per GTR No. 13, connectors do not need to meet IPXXB protection if they are located underneath the vehicle floor and are provided with a locking mechanism, or require the use of tools to separate the connector, or the voltage reduces to below 30 VAC or 60 VDC within one second after the connector is separated.

    In the NPRM, NHTSA expressed disagreement with the GTR's exclusion of connectors under the floor. (See 81 FR at 12654-12655; id. at 12664.) NHTSA believed that if connectors are high voltage sources and if they can be accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools, regardless of whether they are located under the floor, they should be required to meet the same requirements for direct contact protection as other high voltage sources, including barriers providing protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB, based on whether they are located inside or outside the passenger or luggage compartment areas, respectively. Additionally, the agency noted that “vehicle floor” and “connector” are not defined in GTR No. 13.

    Comments Received

    The agency received several comments on this issue. The Alliance and Global request the regulatory text include a separate section setting forth direct contact protection requirements that connectors and the vehicle charge inlet must meet. The Alliance suggests the following definition for “connector”: “A connector is a device that provides mechanical connection and disconnection of high voltage electrical conductors to a suitable mating component, including its housing.” 33

    33 This definition was added in the draft EVS-GTR available at https://www2.unece.org/wiki/display/trans/EVS+13th+session.

    The Alliance and Global suggest that the separate section specify that connectors and the vehicle charge inlet must provide protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB, as appropriate, when connected to its mating component. Further, each connector or vehicle charge inlet must also meet one of the following: (1) It must provide, in an uncoupled state, protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB, as appropriate, if the connector or vehicle charge inlet can be uncoupled from its mating component without a tool; (2) the voltage of the live parts become equal to or less than 60 VDC or 30 VAC within 1 second after separating from its mating component; or (3) it has a locking mechanism that prevents the connector or vehicle charge inlet from being uncoupled from its mating component without a tool.

    In its comment, Tesla asks NHTSA to confirm whether various scenarios involving its connectors underneath the floor of its vehicles would meet the proposed requirements.34 Tesla requests that NHTSA clarify what we consider “acceptable” for connectors underneath the floor.35

    34 Tesla indicates that the high voltage source in its vehicles is located underneath the vehicle's floor, in the form of a battery. The commenter states this is unlike hybrid-electric vehicles, in which the high voltage source is located in or near the vehicle trunk.

    35 While the commenter suggested incorporating Table 4 of ISO 6439-3, it later corrected that it meant to refer to the 2001 version of ISO 6469-3.

    Agency Response

    NHTSA has reviewed the comments and agrees with the recommendations to include separate requirements for direct contact protection of connectors and vehicle charge inlets. In drafting the NPRM, we determined that connectors were high voltage sources and that they should meet all the requirements for high voltage sources. However, the commenters provide more information about connectors, pointing out that they connect high voltage cables to high voltage sources through a mating component. Like high voltage conductors (cables), connectors need to have direct contact protection. But, commenters point out, connectors are unique in that they are designed to be disconnected from their mating component. Therefore, additional safety provisions are required to ensure the safety of this coupling and re-coupling design mechanism. For this reason, we have decided there is a need to specify unique safety provisions for connectors and vehicle charge inlets.

    We have based our final rule on the requirements suggested by the Alliance and Global. The requirements are harmonized with GTR No. 13, ECE R.100, and the draft EVS-GTR for electric vehicles. When a connector is connected to its mating component, it should have direct contact protection IPXXD or IPXXB based on whether the connector is inside or outside the passenger or luggage compartment, respectively. Additionally, connectors are required to meet at least one of the three following requirements: (1) It must provide protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB, as appropriate, in the uncoupled state, if the connector or vehicle charge inlet can be uncoupled from its mating component without a tool; (2) the voltage of the high voltage live parts become equal to or less than 60 VDC or 30 VAC within 1 second after separating from its mating component; or (3) it has a locking mechanism (at least two distinct actions are needed to separate the connector from its mating component) 36 and there are other components that must be removed in order to separate the connector from its mating component and these cannot be removed without the use of tools.

    36 Locking mechanisms on connectors are intended to prevent inadvertent disconnection of the connector from its mating component. Locking mechanism designs include locking levers and screw locking. In these types of locking mechanisms, two distinct actions are needed to uncouple the connector. For a locking lever, the lever would need to be pressed down and then the connector pulled out. For screw locking, the connector would need to be unscrewed and then pulled out.

    Regarding Tesla's recommendation that we incorporate Table 4 of ISO 6469-3 for connectors, we believe there is no need for such an amendment. ISO 6469-3 was revised in 2011 and its requirements for connectors are similar to those in this final rule.37

    37 The requirements for connectors in GTR No. 13, ECE R.100, and the draft EVS-GTR are also consistent with the 2011 revision of ISO 6469-3.

    Regarding Tesla's inquiry about connectors underneath the floor, connectors and electrical protection barriers located under the vehicle's floor are treated the same as other connectors and electrical protection barriers located outside of the passenger and luggage compartments.38 A connector located under the floor that has IPXXB protection level and that cannot be separated from its mating component without tools would comply with the above direct contact protection requirements for connectors. (If it can be separated from its mating component without tools, it must provide protection degree IPXXB in the uncoupled state or the live parts must be equal to or less than 60 VDC or 30 VAC within 1 second from separating from its mating component). Regarding a connector located under the vehicle's floor where the access point to the connector is smaller than a finger could fit through, the connector would need to meet IPXXB protection degree if parts surrounding the connector (that limit access to the connector) can be opened, disassembled or removed without the use of tools.39

    38 In the NPRM, NHTSA noted that electrical protection barriers and connectors located under the vehicle floor should not be excluded from IPXXB direct contact protection and marking requirements because it is possible that the high voltage sources enclosed by these barriers and connectors may be accessed following a rollover crash or during vehicle maintenance. 81 FR at 12654-12655. The agency stated in the NPRM that if connectors and electrical protection barriers located under the vehicle floor can be accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools they should be required to meet the same requirements for high voltage markings and direct contact protection as electric protection barriers and connectors not located under the vehicle floor. Id.

    39 The test method to evaluate protection from direct contact with high voltage sources (S9.1) specifies that before assessing IPXXB or IPXXD protection degree for high voltage components, parts surrounding the high voltage source are opened, disassembled, or removed without the use of tools.

    d. Markings

    NHTSA proposed marking requirements (yellow high voltage symbol) on or near electric energy storage/conversion devices, and on electrical protection barriers in general. We proposed that the markings would not be required for electrical protection barriers that cannot be physically accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools. The proposed provisions were based on GTR No. 13 requirements, but unlike GTR No. 13, the NPRM did not exclude from the marking requirement (1) electrical protection barriers or high voltage sources located under the vehicle floor; (2) connectors generally; or (3) the vehicle charge inlet. NHTSA also proposed that cables for high voltage sources that are not located within electrical protection barriers must be identified by an orange colored outer covering.

    Comments Received

    The agency received multiple comments on this issue.

    The Alliance, Global and Subaru request that connectors be excluded from the marking requirement. The Alliance and Global state that some connectors can be so small that the markings on these connectors would be not easily read and that high voltage cables going into the connectors are required to have orange outer covers, which should signal that the cables and their connectors are high voltage. The Alliance also notes that high voltage connectors do not necessarily carry high current. The Alliance states that the inclusion of a marking requirement for connecters would necessitate product development efforts, increased economic cost and compliance burden, without a commensurate increase in safety.

    Subaru believes that markings should not be necessary on or near electric storage/conversion devices which are not in plain view of vehicle occupants during normal vehicle operation. Subaru states that a device that is mounted under a seat, and that is not visible without first removing the seat, should not have to be marked.

    Tesla believes that high voltage sources underneath the vehicle are subject to a harsh physical environment, and that the markings on them are not likely to survive the vehicle's life. Tesla asks NHTSA to allow for alternative placement of high voltage markings when a vehicle's high voltage source is located under the vehicle's floor.

    Agency Response

    The agency agrees with the Alliance and Global request to exclude connectors from requiring markings. The agency is persuaded by the commenters that connectors do not necessarily carry high current and that the increased economic cost and compliance burden resulting from a marking requirement are not warranted. The connectors are small, so markings on them would not be easily read. Further, we agree that since high voltage cables going into the connectors are required to have orange outer covers, those covers will sufficiently indicate that the cables and their connectors are high voltage. Importantly, the markings are also not needed because, in a change from the NPRM, we have decided to require connectors to have direct contact protection when connected and disconnected from their mating component. (As discussed above, the direct contact protection consists of IPXXD or IPXXB protection when connected to the mating component, and at least one of the following: (1) IPXXD or IPXXB protection when separated from its mating component if the connector can be uncoupled without a tool; (2) a low voltage requirement within 1 second after separation from its mating component; or (3) it cannot be uncoupled from its mating component without the use of tools. Thus, we conclude that connectors will sufficiently protect against the risk of electrical shock without the markings.

    Similarly, the agency also agrees with the Alliance and Global request to exclude the vehicle charge inlet from requiring markings. The markings are not necessary because this final rule requires vehicle charge inlets to have direct contact protection when connected and disconnected from their mating component, like connectors.

    The agency does not agree with Subaru's request to omit the high voltage marking on electric energy storage/conversion 40 devices that are not in plain view of vehicle occupants during normal vehicle operation. GTR No. 13, ECE R.100, and the draft EVS-GTR require the high voltage symbol on or near electric energy storage devices. Since an electric energy storage device is a high density energy source, we believe there is a safety need for the marking, as persons (such as maintenance, repair and rescue personnel and consumers working on their vehicles) encountering the electric energy storage device should be warned of the electrical shock risks. However, we are revising the proposed regulatory text to indicate that the marking on electric energy storage devices “shall be present” rather than “shall be visible.” This terminology is consistent with the draft EVS-GTR. The final rule's wording (“shall be present”) acknowledges that the marking is not, and does not have to be, “visible” on an electric energy storage device when the device is located under the floor away from view.

    40 We do not agree with the idea of excluding a device from the marking requirements simply because the device is not in plain view of the occupants. However, as discussed further below, we are omitting the marking requirement generally for electric energy conversion devices. The rest of this response to Subaru pertains to marking electric energy storage devices.

    Thus, under this final rule, the electric energy storage device must be marked, and the electrical protection barrier for the device must also be marked with a visible high voltage symbol if it can be accessed, opened, and removed without the use of tools. To illustrate, if an electric energy storage device is accessible when the floor mat is pulled out and a floor panel is opened (without the use of tools), the floor panel has to have a high voltage symbol that is visible to the person when he/she pulls out the floor mat.

    NHTSA has decided not to require electric energy conversion devices to be marked with the high voltage symbol. Electric energy conversion devices include fuel cells which convert chemical energy to electric energy. A fuel cell only becomes a high voltage source when hydrogen is supplied to it. Since conversion devices (e.g., fuel cells) are not high density energy sources, we are not requiring them to be marked. However, the electric protection barrier around a conversion device (e.g., fuel cell) will have to be marked, and the mark is required to be visible.

    NHTSA does not agree with Tesla's request to allow alternative positions for the high voltage symbol mark on high voltage sources that are located underneath the vehicle's floor. We do not believe there is a need for the change as the regulatory text requires that the mark be “on or near” electric energy storage devices without providing specifics for the location of the high voltage marking. We note also that this final rule provides that electrical protection barriers that cannot be physically accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools are excluded from the marking requirement,41 which may bear on Tesla's labeling of its devices.

    41 Markings are not required on electrical protection barriers that cannot be physically accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools. The persons who will access the powertrain with tools will be maintenance personnel technically aware of the vehicle's electrical system, and not first responders. We believe that maintenance personnel will have basic knowledge of the workings of the electrical system, so the electrical shock warning symbol is not necessary.

    e. Indirect Contact Protection

    Exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers must be protected against indirect contact 42 during normal vehicle operation and post-crash. The NPRM proposed that the resistance between exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers and the electrical chassis must be less than 0.1 ohms and that the resistance between any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are within 2.5 meters of each other be less than 0.2 ohms (proposed S5.3(c)(2)). The NPRM also proposed (S5.3(c)(3)) that the voltages between an electrical protection barrier and other exposed conductive parts must be less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC (“low voltage requirement”). These proposed requirements would protect against electric shock if any electrically charged components lose isolation within the protective barrier and two exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier are contacted simultaneously, by shunting 43 any harmful electrical current to the vehicle chassis.

    42 Indirect contact refers to the contact of persons with exposed conductive parts.

    43 Shunting is when a low-resistance connection between two points in an electric circuit forms an alternative path for a portion of the current. If a human body contacts an electrical protection barrier that is energized due to loss in electrical isolation of a high voltage source enclosed in the barrier, most of the current would flow through the chassis rather than through the human body because the current path through the chassis has significantly lower resistance (less than 0.1 ohm) than the resistance of the human body (greater or equal to 500 ohm).

    Comments Received

    Global comments that the reference to “any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts” in proposed S5.3(c)(2) “would result in excessive testing requirements, due to the number of potential combinations of two simultaneously reachable exposed parts.” The commenter recommends that manufacturers be authorized to identify a “worst case” pair of conductive parts for testing under the provision to reduce the potential number of combinations. Global also recommends that greater specification for the phrase “any two simultaneously reachable,” be provided, such as a measured distance.

    Agency Response

    NHTSA believes that the regulatory text already provides the specification that the simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers must be located within 2.5 meters of each other. Thus, we do not believe the requirement results in an excessive number of resistance measurements. However, NHTSA is correcting the reference to “exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barriers” in S5.3(c)(2) to qualify that they are exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source under consideration in S5.3.

    Comments Received

    Global comments that the low voltage requirement (S5.3(c)(3)) is too broad in scope and recommends limiting this testing requirement to exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barriers. Global states that in the event of a barrier failure, a voltage differential could exist with regard to all exposed conductive parts of the chassis and all metal parts connected to the chassis. The Alliance comments that the requirements in S5.3(c)(3) should be consistent with the requirement in S5.3(c)(2). I.e., the Alliance believes that the voltage measurements for S5.3(c)(3) between exposed conductive parts should be made on the same exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers for which resistance measurements are made for S5.3(c)(2).

    Agency Response

    The agency agrees with the comments of Global and the Alliance and has worded S5.3(c)(3) to reflect the recommended changes. As adopted, S5.3(c)(3) specifies that the voltage between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier and the electrical chassis must be less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC.44 In addition, the voltage between an exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier and any other simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers within 2.5 meters of it must be less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC.

    44 In the NPRM, S5.3(c)(3) was worded such that the voltage measurements were between the electrical protection barrier and “other exposed conductive parts,” which includes the electrical chassis. Since in this final rule we have modified the proposed wording of S5.3(c)(3) to make the voltage measurements between exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers (in response to Global's comment), the agency has separately added a requirement to S5.3(c)(3) to account for the voltage measurement between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier and the electrical chassis. This change in the language of S5.3(c)(3) makes it more consistent with the language of S5.3(c)(2) and is not a substantive change from the NPRM.

    f. Electrical Isolation Requirements

    Under FMVSS No. 305's current post-crash safety requirements, vehicles must meet either electrical isolation requirements or low voltage requirements. The current requirements for electrical isolation are that the electrical isolation of the high voltage source must be greater than or equal to: 500 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source; 500 ohms/volt for a DC high voltage source without electrical isolation monitoring during vehicle operation; or 100 ohms/volt for a DC high voltage source with an electrical isolation monitoring system during vehicle operation.

    The NPRM proposed to change these requirements (S5.3(a)) and add specifications that high voltage sources must have electrical isolation during normal vehicle operation (S5.4.3.1). Briefly, the proposed electrical isolation requirements are: AC high voltage sources have 500 ohms/volt or higher electrical isolation from the electric chassis; DC high voltage sources have 100 ohms/volt or higher electric isolation from the electric chassis; or, AC high voltage sources that are conductively connected to the DC high voltage sources may have 100 ohms/volt or higher electrical isolation from the electric chassis provided they also provide physical barrier protection.

    Comments Received and Agency Response

    The Alliance first requests that the regulatory text of the electrical isolation option under post-crash conditions (S5.3(a)) and during normal vehicle operating conditions (S5.4.3.1) be replaced by the language in GTR No. 13.

    The agency declines this request. The requirements of the electrical isolation option in FMVSS No. 305 and GTR No. 13 are identical, while the text in FMVSS No. 305 is more concise.

    Second, the Alliance requests changes to the proposed physical barrier protection requirements for AC high voltage sources that are conductively connected to DC high voltage sources and that comply with the lower electrical isolation limit of 100 ohms/volt under post-crash conditions (S5.3(a)(2)). The proposed text in the NPRM permits an AC high voltage source to have an isolation resistance of only 100 ohms/volt if three physical protection requirements are met.45 The Alliance suggests that the low voltage requirement is “not logically needed.” It states that the electric shock scenario identified in NHTSA's Battelle study 46 of physical barriers will never happen if it maintains a minimum electrical isolation of more than 100 ohms/volt, protection against direct contact (IPXXB), and protection against indirect contact (resistance between exposed conductive parts and the electrical chassis and between two exposed conductive parts of less than 0.1 ohms and 0.2 ohms, respectively).

    45 These are proposed as: (1) IPXXB protection level (S5.3(c)(1)), (2) resistance between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier and chassis of less than 0.1 ohms and between any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of barriers less than 2.5 m apart of less than 0.2 ohms (S5.3(c)(2)), and (3) the voltage between electrical protection barrier enclosing the high voltage source and other exposed conductive parts of less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC (“low voltage requirement”) (S5.3(c)(3)).

    46Supra. The NPRM discusses the Battelle study in detail, see 81 FR at 12656.

    NHTSA has carefully analyzed electrical safety implications under the conditions of a minimum electrical isolation of 100 ohms/volt, resistance between exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers and the chassis of 0.1 ohms, and electrical isolation between two exposed conductive parts of 0.2 ohms. The results of the analysis 47 showed that under these conditions, the electric current through the body would be significantly lower than 10 milliamps (mA) DC and 2 mA AC, which are considered safe levels of current for protection from electric shock. Therefore, the agency agrees to this change in the regulatory text requested by the Alliance. Accordingly, S5.3(a)(2) is modified so that AC high voltage sources that are conductively connected to DC high voltage sources may comply with the lower electrical isolation limit of 100 ohms/volt provided they meet the physical protection requirements of S5.3(c)(1) and S5.3(c)(2).

    47 We have docketed a memorandum showing our analysis. See the docket for this final rule.

    g. Electrical Safety During Charging

    Like GTR No. 13, the NPRM proposed (S5.4.5) to require electric vehicles whose rechargeable energy storage system are charged by conductively connecting to a grounded external power supply to have a device to enable conductive connection of the electrical chassis to the earth ground during charging. This proposal was to ensure that in the event of electrical isolation loss during charging, a person contacting the vehicle does not form a ground loop with the chassis and sustain significant electric shock. Additionally, like GTR No. 13, the NPRM proposed (S5.4.3.3) to require the isolation resistance between the high voltage source and the electrical chassis to be at least 1 million ohms when the charge coupler is disconnected. This proposal was to ensure that the magnitude of current through a human body when a person contacts a vehicle undergoing charging is low and in the safe zone.

    Comments Received

    The agency received many comments regarding the requirement for isolation resistance of 1 million ohms during charging.

    The Alliance states that the requirement should only be applicable to conductive charging with an AC external electric power supply, noting that the isolation resistance of one million ohms should be required for the high voltage source (high voltage buses) that are conductively connected to the contacts of the vehicle charge inlet, and not to the vehicle charge inlet itself.

    Mercedes-Benz states that the 1 million ohms isolation resistance specification—

    is intended as a system reliability requirement, not a safety requirement. The safety relevant requirements on an isolation resistance are already specified in S5.4.3.1. . . . [T]he regulatory text [should] explicitly remove the `one million ohm' specification and instead state that the isolation resistance, measured at the vehicle charge inlet, must comply with the requirements stated in S5.4.3.1.

    Tesla states that it does not believe the insulation resistance requirement for the vehicle's inlet is aligned with the associated high voltage hazards that the NPRM proposes to mitigate. Tesla believes that the intent of the insulation resistance requirement is to prevent high voltage current from flowing through the human body. Tesla believes that Section 11.7 of the IEC 61851-1:2010 48 more accurately captures this prevention for AC equipment because it specifically applies to cord and plug-connected equipment. Tesla also recommends that NHTSA “provide clear requirements for off-board (including charging) equipment(s)” since any fault current that is generated while charging would be a function of both the vehicle as well as the electric vehicle supply equipment.

    48 IEC 61851-1:2010, “Electric vehicle conductive charging system—Part I: General Requirements,” https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/6029.

    Agency Response

    To evaluate these comments, NHTSA requested information from technical experts in the working group for the draft EVS-GTR on electric vehicle safety, in which NHTSA participates. Technical information was provided by Mr. Takahiko Miki 49 from the Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d'Automobiles (OICA).50 Mr. Miki noted that the one million ohms electrical isolation requirement is from IEC 61851-1. Mr. Miki also noted that the requirements in IEC 61851-1 apply to conductive charging of electric vehicles with an AC external electric power supply.

    49 Miki, T., “Personal Protection during Charging.” Submitted at the 12th EVS GTR meeting in Paris on September 15, 2016, EVSTF09-32-TF2-04.docx. https://www2.unece.org/wiki/display/trans/9th+Task+Force+meetings+in+Paris.

    50 OICA is an international organization of motor vehicle manufacturers whose members include 39 national trade associations around the world.

    Mr. Miki provided the following detailed explanation of protective measures in vehicles during charging to prevent electric shock. Mr. Miki noted that protection against electric shock during charging by connecting to an AC external electric power supply is provided by the vehicle and the off-board electric vehicle supply equipment (i.e. charge connector) and provided a description of these protection systems. Protection systems in the vehicle include: (1) Protection against direct contact with high voltage live parts and (2) indirect contact protection from high voltage sources (equipotential bonding—earthing/grounding). Protection systems in the electric vehicle supply equipment (charge connector) include: (1) Earthing/grounding conductor between the electrical chassis of a vehicle and the earth/ground, (2) earthing/grounding continuity monitor, and (3) automatic disconnection of supply (residual current device (RCD),51 charging circuit interrupting device (CCID) 52 located in the charge electric vehicle supply equipment or in the fixed electrical installation, or both) operated by the fault current that disconnects one or more of the line conductors.

    51 RCD is a mechanical switching device designed to make, carry and break currents under normal service conditions and to cause the opening of the contacts when the residual current attains a given value under specified conditions. A residual current device can be a combination of various separate elements designed to detect and evaluate the residual current and to make and break current. [Source: IEC 61851-1, IEV 442-05-02]

    52 CCID is a device that continuously monitors the differential current among all of the current-carrying line conductors in a grounded system and rapidly interrupts the circuit under conditions where the differential current exceeds the rated Measurement Indication Unit (MIU) value of a charging circuit interrupting device. The device is identified by the letters CCID followed by the differential trip current rating of either 5 or 20 indicating the tripping rating in MIU. [Source: UL 2231-1]

    The AC external electric power supply is grounded to earth ground. When an electric vehicle is connected to the AC external electric power supply by the charge connector, the vehicle electrical chassis is connected to the earth/ground through the earthing/grounding conductor. If electrical isolation/insulation is lost during charging, the leakage current (residual current) 53 would flow to the earth/ground through the earthing/grounding conductor. Under such conditions, a human body contacting high voltage-exposed conductive parts of the vehicle would not experience electric shock if the leakage current is less than or equal to maximum current levels considered to be safe. If the leakage current reaches or exceeds specified safety threshold levels, the RCD/CCID would open the circuit to interrupt the supply of electric energy. A similar form of this type of electric shock protection measure is provided in homes for use of common household electric equipment.

    53 Leakage current is the current flowing through ground due to a fault condition. The magnitude of leakage current is determined as the difference in the current flowing through the positive terminal and that returning on the negative terminal. Therefore, it is also referred to as residual current.

    The electrical isolation of high voltage sources that are connected to the vehicle charge inlet during charging by connecting the AC external electric power supply is determined based on the characteristics of the RCD/CCID to ensure that leakage current would be significantly lower than the leakage current level that would trip the RCD/CCID to open the circuit. This electrical isolation requirement is not for electric shock protection but to ensure that charging is not interrupted under normal charging conditions. Mr. Miki recommends that the electrical isolation between the electrical chassis and high voltage sources that are conductively connected to the vehicle charge inlet during AC charging be greater than or equal to 500 ohms/volt because with this level of electrical isolation, the leakage current would be sufficiently lower than the leakage (residual) current level that would trip the RCD/CCID to open the circuit and interrupt the electric energy supply.54

    54 For DC charging, the power input to the vehicle is isolated from the ground by the isolation transformer. Therefore, electric shock protection is maintained even if isolation resistance is reduced (fault condition), because the current loop to the ground is not established. Additionally, DC charging stations monitor the combined isolation resistance of the vehicle and the electric vehicle supply equipment. If the DC charging station detects that the combined isolation resistance is lower than the specified value (for electric shock protection), the DC output cable is not energized (power supply is terminated).

    In light of the new information provided by Mr. Miki and the commenters, the agency is modifying the proposed isolation resistance requirement for high voltage sources for charging the electric energy storage device (S5.4.3.3). High voltage sources conductively connected to the vehicle charge inlet during charging (through conductive connection to the AC external electric supply) are required to have electrical isolation from the electric chassis of 500 ohms/volt when the charge connector is disconnected.

    We believe the modified language responds to the comments from the Alliance, Mercedes-Benz, and Tesla. Additionally, the modified requirement is consistent with that developed in the draft EVS-GTR for electric vehicles.

    Regarding Tesla's recommendation for NHTSA to provide clear requirements for off-board (including charging) equipment, the agency is looking into this matter. The safety measures in the electric vehicle supply equipment, such as the RCD/CCID in the charge connector, are specified in the National Electric Code (NEC)—Article 625: Electric Vehicle Charging System and in the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 2954, “Electric vehicle supply equipment.” Adding requirements for off-board equipment is not in scope of this final rule since the agency did not include any such requirements in the NPRM. The agency may consider the need for and the feasibility of requirements for off-board electric vehicle equipment in the future.

    h. Mitigating Driver Error

    NHTSA proposed three provisions for mitigating the likelihood of driver error in operating electric vehicles (S5.4.6). First, the heading and text of proposed S5.4.6.1 proposed that at least a momentary indication shall be given at “start up” when the vehicle is in a possible active driving mode.55 (“Start up” is also used in GTR No. 13.) Second, the NPRM proposed that drivers be provided an audible or visual signal if the vehicle is still in the possible active driving mode when the driver leaves the vehicle. Third, for vehicles that have on-board electric energy storage devices that can be charged externally, the NPRM proposed to prohibit vehicle movement by the vehicle's own propulsion system when the external electric power supply is physically connected to the vehicle charge inlet.

    55 “Possible active driving mode” is the vehicle mode when the application of pressure to the accelerator pedal or release of the brake system causes the electric power train to move the vehicle.

    Comments Received and Agency Response

    The agency received comments from Global, the Alliance and Tesla on the proposal. Global requests a clarification of the meaning of “start up” used in the first provision. Global asks if “start up” refers to the time of engine start or some other meaning.

    NHTSA meant “start up” to refer to the time when the vehicle is first placed in a possible active driving mode (e.g., reverse, drive, or other driving gears) after manual activation of the propulsion system. The provision at issue is intended to reduce operational errors that could have safety implications. For example, a driver might not realize the vehicle is in an active driving mode when he or she pressed on the accelerator pedal, which could result in a potential crash condition. However, to reduce ambiguity, we have modified the final rule regulatory text by replacing the phrase, “upon start up,” with the phrase, “when the vehicle is first placed in possible active driving mode after manual activation of the propulsion system.” Once driving is initiated, notification is not needed when the vehicle is put in neutral to change gears (for manual-drive vehicles).

    The Alliance believes the heading of the third provision for mitigating driver error should be revised from “Prevent drive-away during charging” to “Prevent drive-away” to reflect that the concern is that the driver may drive the vehicle away after charging is completed without disconnecting the charge connector. The Alliance also notes that a simple physical connection without any conductive connection may not be detected by vehicle systems. The commenter recommends changing the phrase, “physically connected to the vehicle charge inlet,” to “physically connected to the vehicle charge inlet in such a way that charging is possible.”

    The agency agrees generally with the Alliance's recommended changes and has changed the proposed regulatory text. We believe the changes improve clarity and removes ambiguity about when and under what conditions the requirement to prevent vehicle movement applies.56

    56 If the charge connector is not connected correctly to the vehicle charge inlet, then charging may not even initiate and driving away with the charge connector physically connected would not result in an electric safety hazard.

    Tesla states that the phrase, “preventing physical vehicle movement by its own power,” is vague and needs clarification. Tesla requests that the agency draw a clear distinction between when a vehicle is considered stationary and when it is in “movement under its own power.” The commenter suggests using a provision in FMVSS No. 114, “Theft protection and rollaway prevention.” S5.2.5 of FMVSS No. 114 specifies that a vehicle must not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the gear selection control is locked in “park.”

    The agency sees merit in Tesla's suggestion to improve objectivity of the requirement for preventing vehicle movement when the charge connector is connected to the vehicle charge inlet. S5.2 in FMVSS No. 114 specifies provisions to prevent rollaway in vehicles equipped with a transmission with a “park” position. One provision is that when the vehicle is resting on a 10 percent grade and the vehicle's gear selection control is locked in “park,” the vehicle must not move more than 150 mm when the brakes are released. To distinguish minor vibrations of the vehicle when it is idling from vehicle movement “under its own power,” the agency is modifying the proposed regulatory text to state that the vehicle must not move more than 150 mm 57 by its own propulsion system when the charge connector is physically connected to the vehicle charge inlet in such a way that charging is possible.

    57 Vehicle movement of 150 mm is deemed sufficiently low such that the charge connector would not disengage from the vehicle inlet or damage the charging equipment.

    i. Test Procedures and Figures in FMVSS No. 305

    The NPRM proposed test procedures for evaluating IPXXB and IPXXD direct contact protection (S9.1), measuring resistance between exposed conductive parts and between an exposed conductive part and the electrical chassis to evaluate indirect contact protection (S9.2), and measuring voltage between exposed conductive part of an electrical protection barrier and the electrical chassis or any other exposed conductive part of the vehicle for indirect contact protection (S9.3).

    For evaluating direct contact protection, the proposed test procedure in S9.1 detailed how the IPXXB and IPXXD probes are used and manipulated to determine if high voltage live parts are contacted. Subaru comments that the description of manipulating the IPXXB finger probe does not specifically note that it is only applicable to the IPXXB probe and not the IPXXD probe. NHTSA agrees and has corrected this omission to indicate that the described manipulation of the finger probe only applies to the IPXXB probe.

    In proposed S9.1 the NPRM did not explicitly provide criteria for assessing whether high voltage live parts were contacted, though such information is provided in GTR No. 13. To make S9.1 clearer, and to better harmonize the test procedure in FMVSS No. 305 with that in GTR No. 13, the criteria for verification of IPXXD and IPXXB protection degree in GTR No. 13 are included in the regulatory text.

    For measuring resistance between two exposed conductive parts, the NPRM at S9.2 provided two methods that could be used. Global states that the two methods were provided in GTR No. 13 as compliance options for manufacturers to select for evaluating indirect contact protection. The commenter recommends we include regulatory text to make clear that it is at the manufacturer's option to choose either test method to certify compliance. The agency agrees that the two methods were provided as compliance test options for manufacturers and has included the recommended regulatory text in S9.2 of FMVSS No.305.

    Global expresses concern that provisions for indirect contact protection in S9.2 create an inordinate certification burden on manufacturers due to the phrase, “any two exposed conductive parts.” The commenter requests that instead of measuring the resistance between two exposed conductive parts, resistance may be calculated using the separately measured resistances of the parts of the electrical chassis.

    NHTSA agrees with this requested change from Global. The agency notes that GTR No. 13, ECE R.100, and the draft EVS-GTR permit resistances to be calculated using the separately measured resistances of the relevant parts in the electric path. NHTSA believes that a calculation option is acceptable for the requirement at issue because resistances can be computed from other measured resistances on an actual vehicle in a straightforward manner, and do not involve potentially subjective judgment calls on the part of evaluators as to whether assumptions underlying a calculation are merited.

    For measuring voltage between exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers, the NPRM specified a method in which the DC power supply, voltmeter, and ammeter are connected between measuring points. The Alliance and Global point out that the DC power supply should not be connected in this test (S9.3a). The agency agrees and has corrected the regulatory text. Additionally, NHTSA believes that calculating the voltage between two exposed conductive parts from the measured voltages between the exposed conductive parts and the electrical chassis is straightforward and unambiguous and so is permitting a calculation option for determining voltage between exposed conductive parts.

    The proposal provided specifications of the IPXXB probe in Figure 7b of the regulatory text. The Alliance and Global note errors in the specification for R2 and R4. The agency has corrected the errors in Figure 7b.

    The Alliance and Global provide an improved Figure 8 in which the text is clearer than the NPRM's Figure 8. The agency has included the new figure in FMVSS No. 305.

    j. Compliance Date

    The NPRM proposed a compliance date of 180 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, with optional early compliance permitted.

    The Alliance states that, although the proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 305 are vital to enable the production of advanced fuel cell and 48-volt mild hybrid vehicles, the “in use” requirements may require some modification of currently-certified electric vehicles. The commenter asks that the compliance date be modified to align it with the first September 1st that is at least 180 days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, with optional early compliance permitted. An individual, Mr. Albert Torres, also believes that a longer compliance date should be provided.

    Agency Response

    The agency believes that most, if not all, electric-powered vehicles currently sold in the United States would be able to comply with the updated requirements in FMVSS No. 305 by the proposed compliance date. However, as noted by the Alliance, some vehicles may need some minor modifications to comply with some of the modifications in FMVSS No. 305, such as the marking requirements. Therefore, the agency finds good cause to provide more time to comply with this final rule. The agency believes one year from the date of publication of the final rule is sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to comply with the updated FMVSS No. 305 requirements. Therefore, the compliance date for the amendments in FMVSS No 305 is one year after publication of the final rule. We permit optional early compliance with this final rule.

    We note that in the “DATES” section at this beginning of this document NHTSA indicates that the “effective date” of this final rule is the date of publication of the rule. The “effective date” in the DATES section is the date the amendments should be incorporated into the CFR. That date is different from the “compliance date” discussed above. As stated above, NHTSA is permitting optional early compliance with this final rule. Because of this, we are amending 49 CFR 571.305 (FMVSS No. 305) on the date of publication of this final rule so that interested manufacturers can begin certifying the compliance of their vehicles with the amended standard from that date.

    V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The amendments made by this final rule will have no significant effect on the national economy, as most of the requirements are already in voluntary industry standards and international standards that current electric powered vehicles presently meet.

    This final rule updates FMVSS No. 305 to incorporate the electrical safety requirements in GTR No. 13. This final rule also responds to petitions for rulemaking from Toyota and the Alliance to facilitate the introduction of fuel cell vehicles and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies into the vehicle fleet. The final rule adds electrical safety requirements in GTR No. 13 that involve electrical isolation and direct and indirect contact protection of high voltage sources to prevent electric shock during normal operation of electric powered vehicles. Today's final rule also provides an additional optional method of meeting post-crash electrical safety requirements that involve physical barriers of high voltage sources to prevent electric shock due to direct and indirect contact with live parts. Since there is widespread conformance with the requirements that would apply to existing vehicles, we anticipate no costs or benefits associated with this rulemaking.

    Executive Order 13771

    Executive Order 13771 titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements. As discussed above, this rule is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, is not subject to the offset requirements of 13771.

    NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking is a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771, as it imposes no costs and, instead, amends FMVSS No. 305 to give more flexibility to manufacturers not only to use modern electrical safety designs to produce electric vehicles, but also to introduce new technologies to the U.S. market, including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies. Although NHTSA was not able to quantify any cost savings for this rule, in adopting an optional method of meeting post-crash electrical safety requirements involving use of physical barriers to prevent direct or indirect contact (by occupants, emergency services personnel and others) with high voltage sources, this final rule adjusts the standard to remove an obstruction that prevented HFCVs to be offered for sale in the U.S. Use of the physical barrier option will also enable manufacturers to produce 48-volt mild hybrid systems without having to use electrical isolation safety measures that involve more complexity, higher consumer costs, and higher mass, without an incremental safety benefit.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996). I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Any small manufacturers that might be affected by this final rule are already subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 305. Further, the agency believes the testing associated with the requirements added by this final rule are not substantial and to some extent are already being voluntarily borne by the manufacturers pursuant to SAE J1766. Therefore, to the extent there is an economic impact on the manufacturers, it will only be minor.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:

    When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1).

    It is this statutory command that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law 58 addressing the same aspect of performance, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be inappropriate.

    58 The issue of potential preemption of state tort law is addressed in the immediately following paragraph discussing implied preemption.

    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law. That possibility is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between a FMVSS and the State requirement. If and when such a conflict exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), finding implied preemption of state tort law on the basis of a conflict discerned by the court,59 not on the basis of an intent to preempt asserted by the agency itself.

    59 The conflict was discerned based upon the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and the safety-related objectives of FMVSS requirements in question and the impact of the State requirements on those objectives.

    NHTSA has considered the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's final rule and does not discern any existing State requirements that conflict with the rule or the potential for any future State requirements that might conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of state law, including state tort law.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.

    Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There are no information collection requirements associated with this NPRM.

    National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, as amended by Public Law 107-107 (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The NTTAA does not apply to symbols.

    FMVSS No. 305 has historically drawn largely from SAE J1766, and does so again for this current rulemaking, which updates FMVSS No. 305 to facilitate the development of fuel cell and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies. It is based on GTR No. 13 and the latest version of SAE J1766 January 2014.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2013 results in $142 million (106.733/75.324 = 1.42). This final rule will not result in a cost of $142 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.

    Executive Order 13609 (Promoting Regulatory Cooperation)

    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part: the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

    The agency participated in the development of GTR No. 13 to harmonize the standards of fuel cell vehicles. As a signatory member, NHTSA is obligated to initiate rulemaking to incorporate electrical safety requirements and options specified in GTR No. 13 into FMVSS No. 305. The agency has initiated rulemaking by way of the March 10, 2016 NPRM and completes it with this final rule.

    Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

    Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

    • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?

    • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?

    • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?

    • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

    • Would more (but shorter) sections be better?

    • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

    • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us with your views.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as follows:

    PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    2. In § 571.305: a. Revise S1 and S2; b. Under S4: i. Add in alphabetical order definitions for “Charge connector,” “Connector,” “Direct contact,” “Electrical protection barrier,” “Exposed conductive part,” “External electric power supply,” and “Fuel cell system”; ii. Revise the definitions of “High voltage source”; iii. Add in alphabetical order definitions for “Indirect contact,” “Live part,” “Luggage compartment,” “Passenger compartment,” and “Possible active driving mode”; iv. Revise the definition of “Propulsion system”; and v. Add in alphabetical order definitions for “Protection degree IPXXB,” “Protection degree IPXXD,” “Service disconnect,” and “Vehicle charge inlet”; c. Revise S5.3 and S5.4; and d. Add S5.4.1, S5.4.1.1, S5.4.1.1.1, S5.4.1.2, S5.4.1.3, S5.4.1.4, S5.4.1.5, S5.4.1.6, S5.4.2, S5.4.2.1, S5.4.2.2, S5.4.3, S5.4.3.1, S5.4.3.2, S5.4.3.3, S5.4.4, S5.4.5, S5.4.6, S5.4.6.1, S5.4.6.2, S5.4.6.3, S9, S9.1, S9.2, S9.3, and figures 6, 7a, 7b, and 8.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 571.305 Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.

    S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for limitation of electrolyte spillage and retention of electric energy storage/conversion devices during and after a crash, and protection from harmful electric shock during and after a crash and during normal vehicle operation.

    S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and injuries during and after a crash that occur because of electrolyte spillage from electric energy storage devices, intrusion of electric energy storage/conversion devices into the occupant compartment, and electrical shock, and to reduce deaths and injuries during normal vehicle operation that occur because of electric shock or driver error.

    S4. * * *

    Charge connector is a conductive device that, by insertion into a vehicle charge inlet, establishes an electrical connection of the vehicle to the external electric power supply for the purpose of transferring energy and exchanging information.

    Connector means a device providing mechanical connection and disconnection of high voltage electrical conductors to a suitable mating component, including its housing.

    Direct contact is the contact of persons with high voltage live parts.

    Electrical protection barrier is the part providing protection against direct contact with high voltage live parts from any direction of access.

    Exposed conductive part is the conductive part that can be touched under the provisions of the IPXXB protection degree and that is not normally energized, but that can become electrically energized under isolation fault conditions. This includes parts under a cover, if the cover can be removed without using tools.

    External electric power supply is a power supply external to the vehicle that provides electric power to charge the electric energy storage device in the vehicle through the charge connector.

    Fuel cell system is a system containing the fuel cell stack(s), air processing system, fuel flow control system, exhaust system, thermal management system, and water management system.

    High voltage source means any electric component which is contained in the electric power train or conductively connected to the electric power train and has a working voltage greater than 30 VAC or 60 VDC.

    Indirect contact is the contact of persons with exposed conductive parts.

    Live part is a conductive part of the vehicle that is electrically energized under normal vehicle operation.

    Luggage compartment is the space in the vehicle for luggage accommodation, separated from the passenger compartment by the front or rear bulkhead and bounded by a roof, hood or trunk lid, floor, and side walls, as well as by electrical protection barriers provided for protecting the occupants from direct contact with high voltage live parts.

    Passenger compartment is the space for occupant accommodation that is bounded by the roof, floor, side walls, doors, outside glazing, front bulkhead and rear bulkhead or rear gate, as well as electrical protection barriers provided for protecting the occupants from direct contact with high voltage live parts.

    Possible active driving mode is the vehicle mode when application of pressure to the accelerator pedal (or activation of an equivalent control) or release of the brake system causes the electric power train to move the vehicle.

    Propulsion system means an assembly of electric or electro-mechanical components or circuits that propel the vehicle using the energy that is supplied by a high voltage source. This includes, but is not limited to, electric motors, inverters/converters, and electronic controllers.

    Protection degree IPXXB is protection from contact with high voltage live parts. It is tested by probing electrical protection barriers with the jointed test finger probe, IPXXB, in Figure 7b.

    Protection degree IPXXD is protection from contact with high voltage live parts. It is tested by probing electrical protection barriers with the test wire probe, IPXXD, in Figure 7a.

    Service disconnect is the device for deactivation of an electrical circuit when conducting checks and services of the vehicle electrical propulsion system.

    Vehicle charge inlet is the device on the electric vehicle into which the charge connector is inserted for the purpose of transferring energy and exchanging information from an external electric power supply.

    S5.3 Electrical safety. After each test specified in S6 of this standard, each high voltage source in a vehicle must meet one of the following requirements: electrical isolation requirements of subparagraph (a), the voltage level requirements of subparagraph (b), or the physical barrier protection requirements of subparagraph (c).

    (a) The electrical isolation of the high voltage source, determined in accordance with the procedure specified in S7.6, must be greater than or equal to one of the following:

    (1) 500 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source; or

    (2) 100 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source if it is conductively connected to a DC high voltage source, but only if the AC high voltage source meets the physical barrier protection requirements specified in S5.3(c)(1) and S5.3(c)(2); or

    (3) 100 ohms/volt for a DC high voltage source.

    (b) The voltages V1, V2, and Vb of the high voltage source, measured according to the procedure specified in S7.7, must be less than or equal to 30 VAC for AC components or 60 VDC for DC components.

    (c) Protection against electric shock by direct and indirect contact (physical barrier protection) shall be demonstrated by meeting the following three conditions:

    (1) The high voltage source (AC or DC) meets the protection degree IPXXB when tested according to the procedure specified in S9.1 using the IPXXB test probe shown in Figures 7a and 7b;

    (2) The resistance between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source and the electrical chassis is less than 0.1 ohms when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.2. In addition, the resistance between an exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source and any other simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers within 2.5 meters of it must be less than 0.2 ohms when tested using the test procedures specified in S9.2; and

    (3) The voltage between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source and the electrical chassis is less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC as measured in accordance with S9.3. In addition, the voltage between an exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source and any other simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers within 2.5 meters of it must be less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC as measured in accordance with S9.3.

    S5.4 Electrical safety during normal vehicle operation.

    S5.4.1 Protection against direct contact.

    S5.4.1.1 Marking. The symbol shown in Figure 6 shall be present on or near electric energy storage devices. The symbol in Figure 6 shall also be visible on electrical protection barriers which, when removed, expose live parts of high voltage sources. The symbol shall be yellow and the bordering and the arrow shall be black.

    S5.4.1.1.1 The marking is not required for electrical protection barriers that cannot be physically accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools. Markings are not required for electrical connectors or the vehicle charge inlet.

    S5.4.1.2 High voltage cables. Cables for high voltage sources which are not located within electrical protection barriers shall be identified by having an outer covering with the color orange.

    S5.4.1.3 Service disconnect. For a service disconnect which can be opened, disassembled, or removed without tools, protection degree IPXXB shall be provided when tested under procedures specified in S9.1 using the IPXXB test probe shown in Figures 7a and 7b.

    S5.4.1.4 Protection degree of high voltage live parts.

    (a) Protection degree IPXXD shall be provided for high voltage live parts inside the passenger or luggage compartment when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.1 using the IPXXD test probe shown in Figure 7a.

    (b) Protection degree IPXXB shall be provided for high voltage live parts in areas other than the passenger or luggage compartment when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.1 using the IPXXB test probe shown in Figures 7a and 7b.

    S5.4.1.5 Connectors. Direct contact protection for a connector shall be provided by meeting the requirements specified in S5.4.1.4 when the connector is connected to its corresponding mating component, and by meeting at least one of the requirements of subparagraphs (a), (b), or (c).

    (a) The connector meets the requirements of S5.4.1.4 when separated from its mating component, if the connector can be separated without the use of tools;

    (b) The voltage of the live parts becomes less than or equal to 60 VDC or 30 VAC within one second after the connector is separated from its mating component; or,

    (c) The connector is provided with a locking mechanism (at least two distinct actions are needed to separate the connector from its mating component) and there are other components that must be removed in order to separate the connector from its mating component and these cannot be removed without the use of tools.

    S5.4.1.6 Vehicle charge inlet. Direct contact protection for a vehicle charge inlet shall be provided by meeting the requirements specified in S5.4.1.4 when the charge connector is connected to the vehicle inlet and by meeting at least one of the requirements of subparagraphs (a) or (b).

    (a) The vehicle charge inlet meets the requirements of S5.4.1.4 when the charge connector is not connected to it; or

    (b) The voltage of the high voltage live parts becomes equal to or less than 60 VDC or equal to or less than 30 VAC within 1 second after the charge connector is separated from the vehicle charge inlet.

    S5.4.2 Protection against indirect contact.

    S5.4.2.1 The resistance between all exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers and the electrical chassis shall be less than 0.1 ohms when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.2.

    S5.4.2.2 The resistance between any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other shall be less than 0.2 ohms when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.2.

    S5.4.3 Electrical isolation.

    S5.4.3.1 Electrical isolation of AC and DC high voltage sources. The electrical isolation of a high voltage source, determined in accordance with the procedure specified in S7.6 must be greater than or equal to one of the following:

    (a) 500 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source;

    (b) 100 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source if it is conductively connected to a DC high voltage source, but only if the AC high voltage source meets the requirements for protection against direct contact in S5.4.1.4 and the protection from indirect contact in S5.4.2; or

    (c) 100 ohms/volt for a DC high voltage source.

    S5.4.3.2 Exclusion of high voltage sources from electrical isolation requirements. A high voltage source that is conductively connected to an electric component which is conductively connected to the electrical chassis and has a working voltage less than or equal to 60 VDC, is not required to meet the electrical isolation requirements in S5.4.3.1 if the voltage between the high voltage source and the electrical chassis is less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC.

    S5.4.3.3 Electrical isolation of high voltage sources for charging the electric energy storage device. For the vehicle charge inlet intended to be conductively connected to the AC external electric power supply, the electric isolation between the electrical chassis and the high voltage sources that are conductively connected to the vehicle charge inlet during charging of the electric energy storage device shall be greater than or equal to 500 ohms/volt when the charge connector is disconnected. The electrical isolation is measured at the high voltage live parts of the vehicle charge inlet and determined in accordance with the procedure specified in S7.6. During the measurement, the rechargeable electric energy storage system may be disconnected.

    S5.4.4 Electrical isolation monitoring. DC high voltage sources of vehicles with a fuel cell system shall be monitored by an electrical isolation monitoring system that displays a warning for loss of isolation when tested according to S8. The system must monitor its own readiness and the warning display must be visible to the driver seated in the driver's designated seating position.

    S5.4.5 Electric shock protection during charging. For motor vehicles with an electric energy storage device that can be charged through a conductive connection with a grounded external electric power supply, a device to enable conductive connection of the electrical chassis to the earth ground shall be provided. This device shall enable connection to the earth ground before exterior voltage is applied to the vehicle and retain the connection until after the exterior voltage is removed from the vehicle.

    S5.4.6 Mitigating driver error.

    S5.4.6.1 Indicator of possible active driving mode. At least a momentary indication shall be given to the driver each time the vehicle is first placed in possible active driving mode after manual activation of the propulsion system. This requirement does not apply under conditions where an internal combustion engine provides directly or indirectly the vehicle's propulsion power when the vehicle is first placed in a possible active driving mode after manual activation of the propulsion system.

    S5.4.6.2 Indicator of possible active driving mode when leaving the vehicle. When leaving the vehicle, the driver shall be informed by an audible or visual signal if the vehicle is still in the possible active driving mode.

    S5.4.6.3 Prevent drive-away. If the on-board electric energy storage device can be externally charged, vehicle movement of more than 150 mm by its own propulsion system shall not be possible as long as the charge connector of the external electric power supply is physically connected to the vehicle charge inlet in a manner that would permit charging of the electric energy storage device.

    S9 Test methods for physical barrier protection from electric shock due to direct and indirect contact with high voltage sources.

    S9.1 Test method to evaluate protection from direct contact with high voltage sources.

    (a) Any parts surrounding the high voltage components are opened, disassembled, or removed without the use of tools.

    (b) The selected access probe is inserted into any gaps or openings of the electrical protection barrier with a test force of 10 N ± 1 N with the IPXXB probe or 1 to 2 N with the IPXXD probe. If the probe partly or fully penetrates into the electrical protection barrier, it is placed in every possible position to evaluate contact with high voltage live parts. If partial or full penetration into the electrical protection barrier occurs with the IPXXB probe, the IPXXB probe shall be placed as follows: starting from the straight position, both joints of the test finger are rotated progressively through an angle of up to 90 degrees with respect to the axis of the adjoining section of the test finger and are placed in every possible position.

    (c) A low voltage supply (of not less than 40 V and not more than 50 V) in series with a suitable lamp may be connected between the access probe and any high voltage live parts inside the electrical protection barrier to indicate whether high voltage live parts were contacted.

    (d) A mirror or fiberscope may be used to inspect whether the access probe touches high voltage live parts inside the electrical protection barrier.

    (e) Protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB is verified when the following conditions are met:

    (i) The access probe does not touch high voltage live parts. The IPXXB access probe may be manipulated as specified in S9.1(b) for evaluating contact with high voltage live parts. The methods specified in S9.1(c) or S9.1(d) may be used to aid the evaluation. If method S9.1(c) is used for verifying protection degree IPXXB or IPXXD, the lamp shall not light up.

    (ii) The stop face of the access probe does not fully penetrate into the electrical protection barrier.

    S9.2 Test method to evaluate protection against indirect contact with high voltage sources. At the option of the manufacturer, protection against indirect contact with high voltage sources shall be determined using the test method in subparagraph (a) or subparagraph (b).

    (a) Test method using a resistance tester. The resistance tester is connected to the measuring points (the electrical chassis and any exposed conductive part of electrical protection barriers or any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other), and the resistance is measured using a resistance tester that can measure current levels of at least 0.2 Amperes with a resolution of 0.01 ohms or less. The resistance between two exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other may be calculated using the separately measured resistances of the relevant parts of the electric path.

    (b) Test method using a DC power supply, voltmeter and ammeter.

    (1) Connect the DC power supply, voltmeter and ammeter to the measuring points (the electrical chassis and any exposed conductive part or any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts that are less than 2.5 meters from each other) as shown in Figure 8.

    (2) Adjust the voltage of the DC power supply so that the current flow becomes more than 0.2 Amperes.

    (3) Measure the current I and the voltage V shown in Figure 8.

    (4) Calculate the resistance R according to the formula, R=V/I.

    (5) The resistance between two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other may be calculated using the separately measured resistances of the relevant parts of the electric path.

    S9.3 Test method to determine voltage between exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers and the electrical chassis and between exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers.

    (a) Connect the voltmeter to the measuring points (exposed conductive part of an electrical protection barrier and the electrical chassis or any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other).

    (b) Measure the voltage.

    (c) The voltage between two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other may be calculated using the separately measured voltages between the relevant electrical protection barriers and the electrical chassis.

    BILLING CODE 4910-59-P ER27SE17.006 ER27SE17.007 ER27SE17.008 ER27SE17.009
    Jack Danielson, Acting Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20350 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    82 186 Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1210 [Document Number AMS-SC-16-0097] Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Redistricting and Importer Representation AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposal invites comments on realigning the production districts under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan (Plan) for producer and handler membership on the National Watermelon Promotion Board (Board), and adding four importer seats to the Board. The Board administers the Plan with oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These changes were recommended by the Board after a review of the production volume in each district as well as assessments paid by importers. This action is necessary to provide for the equitable representation of producers, handlers and importers on the Board. The Plan requires that such a review be conducted every 5 years. This action would increase the number of importer seats from 8 to 12, thereby increasing the number of Board members from 37 to a total of 41: 14 producers, 14 handlers, 12 importers, and one public member.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments may be submitted on the internet at: http://www.regulations.gov or to the Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-2800. All comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection, including name and address, if provided, in the above office during regular business hours or it can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stacy Jones King, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 731-2117; facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule is issued under the Plan (7 CFR part 1210). The Plan is authorized under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. 4901-4916).

    Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

    Executive Order 13175

    This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.

    Executive Order 12988

    In addition, this proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. The Act provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other State or Federal law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.

    Under section 1650 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4909), a person may file a written petition with USDA if they believe that the Plan, any provision of the Plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Plan, is not in accordance with the law. In any petition, the person may request a modification of the Plan or an exemption from the Plan. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Afterwards, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will issue a decision. If the petitioner disagrees with the ALJ's ruling, the petitioner has 30 days to appeal to the Judicial Officer, who will issue a ruling on behalf of USDA. If the petitioner disagrees with USDA's ruling, the petitioner may file, within 20 days, an appeal in the U.S. District Court for the district where the petitioner resides or conducts business.

    Background

    Under the Plan, the Board administers a nationally coordinated program of research, development, advertising and promotion designed to strengthen the watermelon's position in the market place and to establish, maintain, and expand markets for watermelons. The program is financed by assessments on producers growing 10 acres or more of watermelons, handlers of watermelons, and importers of 150,000 pounds of watermelons or more per year. The Plan specifies that handlers are responsible for collecting and submitting both the producer and handler assessments to the Board, reporting their handling of watermelons, and maintaining records necessary to verify their reporting(s). Importers are responsible for payment of assessments to the Board on watermelons imported into the United States through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs).

    This proposal invites comments on realigning the production districts under the Plan for producer and handler membership on the Board, and adding four importer seats to the Board. The Board administers the Plan with oversight by USDA. These changes were recommended by the Board after a review of the production volume in each district as well as the assessments paid by importers. The Plan requires that such a review be conducted every 5 years. This action is necessary to provide for the equitable representation of producers, handlers and importers on the Board.

    Section 1210.320(a) of the Plan specifies that the Board shall be composed of producers, handlers, importers and one public representative appointed by the Secretary. Under the Plan, pursuant to section 1210.320(b), the United States is divided into seven districts of comparable production volumes of watermelons, and each district is allocated two producer members and two handler members. Section 1210.320(d) specifies that importer representation on the Board shall be proportionate to the percentage of assessments paid by importers to the Board, except that at least one representative of importers shall serve on the Board.

    The current Board is composed of 37 members—14 producers (one from each district), 14 handlers (one from each district), 8 importers and one public member.

    Review of U.S. Districts

    Section 1210.320(c) requires the Board, at least every 5 years, to review the districts to determine whether realignment is necessary. In conducting the review, the Board must consider: (1) The most recent 3 years of USDA production reports or Board assessment reports if USDA production reports are not available; (2) shifts and trends in quantities of watermelon produced, and (3) other relevant factors. As a result of the review, the Board may recommend to USDA that the districts be realigned.

    Pursuant to section 1210.501 of the Plan's rules and regulations, the seven current districts are as follows:

    District 1—The Florida counties of Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Dade, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lake, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Lucie, and Volusia;

    District 2—The Florida counties of Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion, Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington, and the States of North Carolina and South Carolina;

    District 3—The State of Georgia;

    District 4—The States of Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Washington, DC;

    District 5—The State of California;

    District 6—The State of Texas; and

    District 7—The States of Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

    The districts listed above were recommended by the Board in 2010 and established through rulemaking by USDA in 2011 (76 FR 42009; July 18, 2011).

    The Board appointed a subcommittee in 2016 to conduct a review of the seven U.S. watermelon production districts to determine whether realignment was necessary. The subcommittee held a teleconference on July 27, 2016, and reviewed production data for 2013, 2014 and 2015 from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS) Vegetables Annual Summary for 2015.1 The data is shown in Table 1 below.

    1 Vegetables 2015 Summary, February 2016, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 44. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm//2010s/2016/VegeSumm-02-040-2016.pdf. NASS lists watermelon data for 16 producing States.

    Table 1—U.S. Watermelon Production Figures From 2013-2015 State Hundredweight 2013 2014 2015 3-Year
  • average
  • % of U.S.
  • 3-year
  • average
  • A B C D E Alabama 377,000 456,000 420,000 417,667 1.2 Arizona 1,800,000 1,334,000 1,584,000 1,572,667 4.5 Arkansas 336,000 320,000 338,000 331,333 1.0 California 5,800,000 6,384,000 5,512,000 5,898,667 16.9 Delaware 864,000 833,000 761,000 819,333 2.4 Florida 6,262,000 4,827,000 5,880,000 5,656,333 16.2 Georgia 5,580,000 5,130,000 5,510,000 5,406,667 15.5 Indiana 2,414,000 2,964,000 2,415,000 2,597,667 7.5 Maryland 1,056,000 1,089,000 1,040,000 1,061,667 3.0 Mississippi 400,000 378,000 315,000 364,333 1.0 Missouri 843,000 837,000 572,000 750,667 2.2 North Carolina 1,710,000 1,155,000 1,798,000 1,554,333 4.5 Oklahoma 242,000 364,000 540,000 382,000 1.1 South Carolina 2,734,000 1,862,000 2,736,000 2,444,000 7.0 Texas 5,520,000 5,200,000 5,520,000 5,413,333 15.5 Virginia 164,000 130,000 163,000 152,333 0.4 United States 36,102,000 33,263,000 35,104,000 34,823,000 Column D equals the sum of (Columns A, B and C), divided by 3. Column E equals Column D divided by 34,823,000 pounds (the total for the U.S.), multiplied by 100.

    The subcommittee considered three scenarios in realigning the districts. All three scenarios would consolidate the State of Florida into District 1 and would make no changes to Districts 3 (Georgia), 5 (California), and 6 (Texas). Two of the scenarios would have moved the States of North and South Carolina into one district—District 2. Ultimately the subcommittee proposed the following changes: (1) Consolidating the State of Florida into one district by moving the Florida counties of Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion, Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington from District 2 to District 1; (2) moving the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia from District 4 to District 2; and (3) moving the State of Alabama from District 4 to District 7. As shown in Table 2, under the realignment, each district would represent, on average, 14 percent of the total U.S. production based on NASS data, with a range of 11 to 17 percent.

    Table 2—Proposed Percent of U.S. Production by District 2 Districts % of U.S.
  • production
  • 1 16 2 12 3 16 4 13 5 17 6 16 7 11

    Upon review, the Board subsequently recommended through a mail ballot vote in late July 2016 that four of the seven production districts be realigned. The proposed districts would be as follows:

    2 Table values were rounded to the nearest percent.

    District 1—The State of Florida;

    District 2—The States of Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia;

    District 3—The State of Georgia (no change);

    District 4—The States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington, DC;

    District 5—The State of California (no change);

    District 6—The State of Texas (no change); and

    District 7—The States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

    Additionally, USDA has reviewed the NASS report that was issued in February 2017.3 The data is shown in Table 3 below. While the data is in a slightly different format (consolidating some of the smaller producing states), the data is consistent with the Board's recommendation.

    3 Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 103-104; http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_revision.pdf.

    Table 3—U.S. Watermelon Production Figures 2016 State Hundredweight % of total
  • U.S.
  • Alabama * N/A Arizona 2,448,000 6 Arkansas N/A California 6,750,000 17 Delaware 838,000 2 Florida 7,659,000 19 Georgia 6,076,000 15 Indiana 3,010,000 8 Maryland 1,070,000 3 Mississippi N/A Missouri ** D North Carolina D Oklahoma N/A South Carolina 2,592,000 6 Texas 7,250,000 18 Virginia N/A Other States 2,432,000 7 United States 40,125,000 * N/A means not available; the estimates were discontinued in 2016. ** D means that the data is withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.

    Section 1210.501 of the Plan's rules and regulations would be revised accordingly.

    Review of Imports

    Section 1210.320(e) of the Plan requires USDA to evaluate the average annual percentage of assessments paid by importers during the 3-year period preceding the date of the evaluation and adjust, to the extent practicable, the number of importer representatives on the Board.

    Table 4 below shows domestic and import assessment data for watermelons for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The data is from the Board's financial audits for 2013, 2014 4 and 2015.5

    4 National Watermelon Promotion Board, Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Years Ending March 31, 2015, and 2014, Cross, Fernandez & Riley, LLP, Accountants and Consultants, July 7, 2014, p. 6.

    5 National Watermelon Promotion Board, Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Years Ending March 31, 2016, and 2015, BDO USA, LLP, July 25, 2016, p. 8.

    Table 4—U.S. and Import Assessment Data for 2013-2015 Year Domestic (U.S.)
  • assessments
  • Import
  • assessments
  • Total
    2013 $1,829,446 $952,484 $2,781,930 2014 2,009,528 1,033,797 3,043,325 2015 2,133,552 1,100,810 3,234,362 3-Year Average 1,990,842 1,029,030 3,019,872 Percent of Total 66 34

    Based on this data, the three-year average annual import assessments for watermelons for 2013-2015 totaled $1,029,030, approximately 34 percent of the Board's assessment income. Thus, increasing the number of importers on the Board from 8 to 14 members would reflect that almost 34 percent of the assessments were paid by importers over the 3-year period. However, due to the difficulty the Board has had in finding individuals that are both eligible and willing to serve in the current eight importer seats, it will likely be very challenging to fill six additional importer seats. Furthermore, under the nomination rules of the Plan, the Board would need to recommend to the Secretary at least two importers for each open seat, which would mean that 12 eligible and willing importers would have to be secured. For these reasons, the Board recommended only adding four importer seats (representing 30 percent of the total industry members) to ensure that it would have a sufficient number of potential nominees. The Board subsequently recommended through the July 2016 mail vote increasing the number of importer seats from 8 to 12, thereby increasing the number of Board members from 37 to a total of 41: 14 producers, 14 handlers, 12 importers, and one public member. Importers would represent 30 percent of the Board's 40 industry members. (Importers (8) represent about 22 percent of the current Board's 36 industry members.)

    Section 1210.502 of the Plan's rules and regulations would be revised accordingly.

    If this proposed rule becomes final, nominations would be held as soon as possible to fill the four new importer seats.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the economic impact of this proposed rule on the small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.

    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.5 million.

    According to the Board, there are 1,251 producers, 147 handlers, and 365 importers who are required to pay assessments under the program. NASS data for the 2016 crop year estimated about 354 hundredweight (cwt.) of watermelons were produced per acre in the United States, and the 2016 grower price was $14.40 per cwt.6 Thus, the value of watermelon production per acre in 2016 averaged about $5,098 (354 cwt. × $14.40). At that average price, a producer would have to farm over 147 acres to receive an annual income from watermelons of $750,000 ($750,000 divided by $5,098 per acre equals approximately 147 acres). Using 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture data, a maximum of 321 farms had watermelon acreage greater than or equal to 100 acres, and 12,675 out of a total of 12,996 farms producing watermelons reported less than 100 acres of watermelon on their farms.7 Therefore, assuming watermelon producers operate no more than one farm, a majority (97.5 percent) of all U.S. watermelon farms would be classified as small businesses. Using Board assessment data, 930 of the 1,251 (roughly 74 percent) of U.S. watermelon producers currently paying assessments to the Board would be classified as small businesses.

    6 Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 102-104. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_revision.pdf.

    7 2012 Census of Agriculture, May 2014, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 36; https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf.

    Also based on the Board's data, using an average freight on board (f.o.b.) price of $0.186 per pound and the number of pounds handled annually, none of the watermelon handlers have receipts over the $7.5 million threshold.8 Therefore, the watermelon handlers would all be considered small businesses. A handler would have to ship over 40 million pounds of watermelons to be considered large (40,322,580 × $.0186 f.o.b. equals approximately $7,500,000).

    8 National Watermelon Promotion Board assessment records, 2013-2015.

    Based on 2016 Customs data, over 90 percent of watermelon importers shipped under $7.5 million worth of watermelons. Based on the foregoing, the majority of the producers, handlers and importers that would be affected by this proposed rule would be classified as small entities.

    Regarding the value of the commodity, based on 2016 NASS data, the value of the U.S. watermelon crop was about $578 million.9 According to Customs data, the value of 2016 imports was about $356 million.

    9 Vegetables, 2016 Summary, February 2017, USDA, p. 104.

    This proposal invites comments on revising sections 1210.501 and 1210.502 of the Plan's rules and regulations, respectively, to change the boundaries of four of the seven U.S. production districts and to add four importers to the Board, increasing the size of the Board from 37 to 41 members. The Board administers the Plan with oversight by USDA.

    Under the Plan, the United States is divided into seven districts of comparable production volumes of watermelons, and each district is allocated two producer members and two handler members. Further, importer representation on the Board must be, to the extent practicable, proportionate to the percentage of assessments paid by importers, except there must be at least one importer on the Board.

    Every 5 years, the Board is required to evaluate, based on the preceding 3-year period, the average production in each production district and the average annual percentage of assessments paid by importers. The Board conducted this review in 2016 and recommended changing the boundaries of four of the seven districts and increasing the importer membership by four members. Authority for these changes is provided in section 1210.320 of the Plan.

    Regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule on affected entities, neither the realignment of production districts nor the expansion of Board membership imposes additional costs on industry members. Eligible importers interested in serving on the Board would have to complete a background questionnaire. Those requirements are addressed in the section titled Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. The recommended changes are necessary to provide for the equitable representation of producers, handlers and importers.

    Regarding alternatives, the Board considered three scenarios in realigning the districts. All three scenarios would consolidate the State of Florida in District 1 and would make no changes to Districts 3 (Georgia), 5 (California), and 6 (Texas). Two of the scenarios would have moved the States of North and South Carolina into one district—District 2. Ultimately the Board recommended consolidating the State of Florida into one district (District 1), moving the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia from District 4 to District 2; and moving the State of Alabama from District 4 to District 7. The Board recommended the alignment scenario described in this proposed rule because it: (1) Would provide for a proportional geographical representation on the Board for producers and handlers; (2) would not create any producer or handler vacancies on the Board; and (3) would streamline the nomination process for District 1 by condensing all the Florida counties into a single district. The Board's recommendation is consistent with the 2011 realignment that kept States (except Florida) together.

    Regarding alternatives for importer representation, as stated previously, the three-year average annual imports for watermelon totals $1,029,030. This represents almost 34 percent of the total assessments paid to the Board. One alternative would be to add five or six importer seats (representing 33 and 35 percent, respectively, of the Board's 40 industry members), so that importer representation would be proportionate to the percentage of importer assessments paid. However, due to the difficulty the Board has had in finding individuals that are both eligible and willing to serve in the current eight importer seats, it will likely be very challenging to fill six additional importer seats. Furthermore, under the nomination rules of the Plan, the Board would need to recommend to the Secretary at least two importers for each open seat, which would mean that 12 eligible and willing importers would have to be secured. For these reasons, the Board recommended only adding four importer seats (representing 30 percent of the total industry members) to ensure that it would have a sufficient number of potential nominees. This is consistent with section 1210.320(e) of the Plan which prescribes that the number of importer seats should be adjusted, to the extent practicable. The addition of four importers would allow for more importer representation in the Board's decision making and also potentially provide an opportunity to increase diversity on the Board.

    Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the background form, which represents the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Plan, have been approved previously under OMB number 0581-0093. The Plan requires that two nominees be submitted for each vacant position. With regard to information collection requirements, adding four importers to the Board means that eight additional importers would be required to submit background forms (Form AD-755) to USDA in order to verify their eligibility for appointment to the Board. However, serving on the Board is optional, and the burden of submitting the background form would be offset by the benefits of serving on the Board. The estimated annual cost of the eight importers providing the required information would be $66 or $8.25 per importer. The additional minimal burden would be included in the existing information collection package under OMB number 0581-0093.

    As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

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

    Regarding outreach efforts, the Board formed a subcommittee to review the production, assessment and import data to assess whether changes to the district boundaries and number of importers on the Board was warranted. The subcommittee held a teleconference on July 27, 2016. All Board and subcommittee meetings, including meetings held via teleconference, are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.

    We have performed this initial RFA analysis regarding the impact of these changes to the Plan on small entities and we invite comments concerning potential effects of this action.

    USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and would effectuate the purposes of the Act.

    A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate so that the proposed changes, if adopted, may be implemented as soon as possible to allow for nominations to be conducted to fill the four new importer seats. All written comments received in response to this proposed rule by the date specified would be considered prior to finalizing this action.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Watermelon promotion.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1210 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1210—WATERMELON RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1210 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 4901-4916 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.

    Subpart C—Rules and Regulations 2. In § 1210.501, revise the introductory text and paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (g) to read as follows:
    § 1210.501 Realignment of districts.

    Pursuant to § 1210.320(c) of the Plan, the districts shall be as follows:

    (a) District 1—The State of Florida.

    (b) District 2—The States of Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

    (d) District 4—The States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington, DC.

    (g) District 7—The States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

    3. Section 1210.502 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1210.502 Importer members.

    Pursuant to § 1210.320(d) of the Plan, there are twelve importer representatives on the Board based on the proportionate percentage of assessments paid by importers to the Board.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20610 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2017-0138] RIN 3150-AK05 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 Through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System (NUHOMS® System) listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to renew, for an additional 40-year period, Revision 1 of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and 13, and Amendment No. 14 of Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. These changes require, among other things, that all future amendments and revisions to this CoC include evaluations of the impacts to aging management activities (i.e., time-limited aging analyses and aging management programs (AMPs)) to ensure that they remain adequate for any changes to spent fuel storage cask systems, structures, and components (SSCs) within the scope of the renewal. Each general licensee using a NUHOMS® System at a reactor site must have a program to establish, implement, and maintain written procedures for each AMP described in the AREVA Inc. (AREVA) Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). In addition, the renewals reflect the change in the name of the CoC holder from AREVA to TN Americas LLC, and make several other changes as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of a companion direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by October 27, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0138. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 301-415-6825; email: [email protected], or Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 301-415-5175; email: [email protected] Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Rulemaking Procedure III. Background IV. Plain Writing V. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0138 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0138.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0138 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Rulemaking Procedure

    This proposed rule is limited to the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, Revision 1, and Amendment No. 14 of CoC No. 1004. Because the NRC considers this action to be non-controversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured.

    The direct final rule will become effective on December 11, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this proposed rule by October 27, 2017, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to these proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.

    A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

    (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

    (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

    (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

    (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

    (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

    (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications.

    For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    III. Background

    Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

    To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). A general license authorizes a reactor licensee to store spent fuel in NRC-approved casks at a site that is licensed to operate a power reactor under 10 CFR part 50 or 52. This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on December 22, 1994 (59 FR 65898) that approved the NUHOMS® System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1004.

    IV. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

    V. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

    Document ADAMS
  • Accession No./
  • Federal Register
  • citation
  • Final Rule: “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” 55 FR 29181 Final Rule: List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Addition 59 FR 65898 AREVA, Inc.—Renewal Application for the Standardized NUHOMS® System—CoC 1004 ML14309A341 AREVA, Inc.—Revision 1 to Renewal Application for the Standardized NUHOMS® System—CoC 1004, Response to First Request for Additional Information ML15295A354 AREVA, Inc., Second Response to NRC RAI Re: Renewal Application for the Standardized NUHOMS® System—CoC 1004 ML16169A025 AREVA, Inc., Regarding Response to Re-Issue of Second Request for Additional Information—AREVA, Inc. Renewal Application for the Standardized NUHOMS® System—CoC 1004 ML16279A368 AREVA, Inc., AREVA Internal Reorganization—Effect on Certificate of Compliance Ownership ML16327A011 Submittal of NUH-003, “Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System For Irradiated Nuclear Fuel,” Revision 14 ML14255A191 Preliminary Certificate of Compliance and Preliminary Technical Specifications for CoC No. 1004, Renewed Amendment Nos. 1-11, Revision 1, and Amendment Nos. 13-14, Revision 1 ML17131A006 (package) TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System—Draft SER [Safety Evaluation Report] for Renewed CoC 1004, Amendment Nos. 1-11, 13 and 14 ML17131A121

    The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2017-0138. The Federal Rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2017-0138); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

    Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

    PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

    2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1004 is revised to read as follows:
    § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

    Certificate Number: 1004.

    Initial Certificate Effective Date: January 23, 1995, superseded by Initial Certificate, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Initial Certificate, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Initial Certificate, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Initial Certificate, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: April 27, 2000, superseded by Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: September 5, 2000, superseded by Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: September 12, 2001, superseded by Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: February 12, 2002, superseded by Amendment Number 4, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 4, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 4, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 4, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: January 7, 2004, superseded by Amendment Number 5, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 5, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 5, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 5, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: December 22, 2003, superseded by Amendment Number 6, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 6, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 6, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 6, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: March 2, 2004, superseded by Amendment Number 7, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 7, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 7, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 7, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 8 Effective Date: December 5, 2005, superseded by Amendment Number 8, Revision 1 on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017. Amendment Number 9 Effective Date: April 17, 2007, superseded by Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 10 Effective Date: August 24, 2009, superseded by Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 11 Effective Date: January 7, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 12 Effective Date: Amendment not issued by the NRC.

    Amendment Number 13 Effective Date: May 24, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, Effective Date: April 25, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    Amendment Number 14 Effective Date: April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 14, on December 11, 2017.

    Renewed Amendment Number 14 Effective Date: December 11, 2017.

    SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc.

    SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel.

    Docket Number: 72-1004.

    Certificate Expiration Date: January 23, 2015.

    Renewed Certificate Expiration Date: January 23, 2055.

    Model Number: NUHOMS®-24P, -24PHB, -24PTH, -32PT, -32PTH1, -37PTH, -52B, -61BT, -61BTH, and -69BTH.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of September, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Frederick D. Brown, Acting Executive Director of Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20709 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9074; Product Identifier 2016-NM-097-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by expanding the list of affected engine fan cowl door (FCD) part numbers and adding Airbus Model A320-216 airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this Airworthiness Directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2016 (81 FR 65980), is reopened.

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by November 13, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed 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. 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.

    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-2016-9074; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    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:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9074; Product Identifier 2016-NM-097-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes, Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2016 (81 FR 65980) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of engine FCD losses on airplanes equipped with CFM56 engines due to operator failure to close the FCD during ground operations. The NPRM proposed to require modification and re-identification, or replacement, of certain FCDs. The NPRM also proposed to require installation of a placard.

    Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued AD 2016-0257, dated December 16, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”). The MCAI added part number 238-0301-509 to the list of affected FCDs. In addition, we have certified Airbus Model A320-216 airplanes, which are also affected by the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, we have added Airbus Model A320-216 airplanes to the applicability of this SNPRM.

    EASA has issued the MCAI to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, and -216 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fan Cowl Door (FCD) losses were reported on aeroplanes equipped with CFM56 engines. Investigation results confirmed that in all cases the fan cowls were opened prior to the flight and were not correctly re-secured. During the pre-flight inspection, it was then not detected that the FCD[s] were not properly latched.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight loss of a FCD, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.

    Prompted by these events, new FCD front latch and keeper assembly were developed, having a specific key necessary to un-latch the FCD. This key cannot be removed unless the FCD front latch is safely closed. The key, after removal, must be stowed in the flight deck at a specific location, as instructed in the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual. Applicable Flight Crew Operating Manuals have been amended accordingly. After modification, the FCD is identified with a different Part Number (P/N). Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-71-1068 to provide the modification instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0069 to require modification and re-identification of [affected] FCD[s] [or replacement of affected FCDs].

    After that [EASA] AD was published, FCD P/N 238-0301-509 was identified as missing in the list of affected FCD P/N[s] provided in the [EASA] AD.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirement of EASA AD 2016-0069, which is superseded, and expands the list of affected FCD P/N[s].

    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-2016-9074.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying the left-hand and right-hand FCDs on engines 1 and 2; installing a placard; and re-identifying both the left-hand and right-hand FCDs with a new part number. 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.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comments received.

    Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International stated that it supports the NPRM.

    Requests To Revise the Costs of Compliance

    American Airlines commented that the parts cost shown in the proposed AD (in the NPRM) is for only one engine instead of two.

    We agree that the costs specified in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) were only for one engine. We have revised the Costs of Compliance section in this SNPRM to show the cost for two engines.

    American Airlines also requested that the cost of maintenance activities associated with the service information—e.g., re-rigging all cowl latches during embodiment, or other recording, tracking, and supply chain costs—be included in the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request. We recognize that, in accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators might incur additional maintenance or “incidental” costs in addition to the “direct” costs that are reflected in the cost analysis presented in the preamble of a proposed AD. However, the cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically does not include maintenance or incidental costs. We have not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

    Request To Change the Compliance Time for the Modification

    American Airlines requested that the compliance time for the modification be changed from 35 months to 48 months. American Airlines stated that more time is necessary due to the size of its fleet and the lead time to obtain parts.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the modification. In consideration of these items, as well as the reports of FCD losses in service, we have determined that a 35-month compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the modifications to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. In addition, we find that 35 months provides sufficient time to order parts and accomplish the required modification. However, under the provisions of paragraph (n)(1) of this proposed AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.

    Request To Be Specific About Which FCDs Require Modification

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that we specify which FCDs need to be modified by listing the FCD serial numbers (S/N) in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would mandate reworking all FCDs on the affected aircraft. Delta stated that Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, specifies which FCDs require modification by identifying the applicable serial numbers. Delta stated that FCDs with serial numbers not listed in Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, do not require modification.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. The State of Design Authority (EASA) and Airbus have determined the scope of discrepant FCD part numbers, which are identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as “old P/N.” The objective of the Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, is to provide instructions for modification. Delta has not provided any substantiation in support of its suggestion that the serial numbers identified in the proposed AD (in the NPRM) that are not listed in Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, are not affected by the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.

    Request To Remove Requirement To Re-Identify FCDs After Modification

    Delta requested that paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be removed. Delta indicated that the proposed AD would mandate that the modified FCD be re-identified as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD. Delta noted that this information and re-identification is already specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016; and Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016. Delta indicated that table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h) (i) and (k) of the proposed AD is a duplication of the re-identification requirement in paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD, and lends itself to confusion and errors. Delta proposed to delete the requirement in paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Alternatively, Delta recommended that paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) refer to step 3.I.H. in Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, for the correct re-identification requirement.

    We do not agree to remove paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD or refer to Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016. However, we do agree to clarify paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD. We have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD to clarify that modified parts as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD are re-identified to the correct “new” part number identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this proposed AD.

    Requests To Remove Requirement for Placard

    Delta requested that we remove the requirement for installing a placard on the flight deck stowage compartment area to note the location of the keys to the FCD latches. American Airlines and Delta both indicated that the placard and the location of the keys are not safety-related.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. Installation of the placard is designed to ensure that the key is stowed in a particular location onboard the airplane and can be consistently retrieved from that location when needed. An operator may apply for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, provided it can be shown that there is an alternative means to ensure the key is stowed onboard the airplane in a constantly retrievable and accessible location.

    Request To Remove Reference to Certain Instructions for Installing Replacement FCDs

    Delta requested that the alternative action in paragraphs (h) and (l)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to install replacement FCDs using instructions “. . . approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA),” be removed from the proposed AD. Delta noted that neither the service information nor the MCAI indicate any airworthiness concerns with the FCD installation. Delta stated that the on-wing work does not involve checking or re-installing the FCD; it involves only replacing the latch assembly. Delta requested that the proposed AD either specify the airworthiness concern regarding the procedure or provide FAA-approved instructions.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. Installation of a new part using procedures that are not approved might result in an inadvertent addition of an unsafe condition. We have coordinated with Airbus and EASA and agreed that the installation must be done in accordance with the approved methods specified in paragraphs (h) and (l)(2) of this proposed AD.

    Request To Allow Modification of Spare FCDs Using Goodrich Service Bulletin

    American Airlines requested that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised to allow modification of spare FCDs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, when an FCD is modified while off the airplane. American Airlines indicated that the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016, contain procedures that are only applicable to FCDs that are installed on an airplane.

    We acknowledge the commenter's request and have determined that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (h) of this proposed AD allows installation of replacement parts that are acceptable for compliance with paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this proposed AD using methods other than Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016, that are approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.

    Request To Allow Flight With Alternative Configuration

    Delta noted that paragraph (k) of the proposed AD would prohibit installing any FCD that has an old part number after the AD effective date. Delta noted that it is possible to have an airplane on which only one FCD is removed for maintenance. Delta requested that we clarify whether it is acceptable to have an aircraft with a mix of old and new part numbers on the FCDs, prior to the compliance deadline.

    We agree to provide clarification. We have revised the requirement in paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to match the corresponding requirement in the EASA AD. If an “old” part is installed prior to the effective date of this AD, then after modification of this part to a “new” part, installation of an “old” part is prohibited as specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. If a “new” part is installed, then as of the effective date of this AD, installation of an “old” part is prohibited as specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this proposed AD. These requirements apply to both engines.

    Requests To Change Parts Installation Prohibition

    American Airlines, Virgin America, and Delta requested that the parts installation prohibition in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be changed to allow affected FCDs to be installed on airplanes up to 35 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenters noted that FCDs are routinely removed for maintenance, and stated that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would require any removed FCD with an “old” part number to be modified immediately. The commenters indicated that this requirement was overly restrictive when compared to the MCAI requirements or the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, which requires modifying FCDs within 35 months after the effective date of this AD.

    We agree to provide clarification. As stated previously in the comment response to “Request To Allow Flight With Alternative Configuration,” we have revised the requirement in paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to match the corresponding requirement in the EASA AD.

    Requests To Allow Use of Later Revisions of Service Information

    American Airlines and Delta requested that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised to allow the use of later revisions of service information. American Airlines indicated that the MCAI states: “The use of later approved revisions of this document is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.”

    We do not concur with the commenters' request. We cannot refer to any document that does not yet exist. In general terms, we are required by the Office of the Federal Register's (OFR) regulations to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. We may refer to the service document in the AD only if the OFR approved it for “incorporation by reference.” See 1 CFR part 51.

    To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions as an AMOC with this AD under the provisions of paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

    Request To Use an Alternative Procedure for Modifying FCDs

    Allegiant Air stated it has developed a procedure that requires a log entry each time an FCD is opened or closed. Allegiant Air noted that all of its FCD latches are painted bright orange in contrast to the blue color of the FCDs, which makes it easier for the crew to detect any unlatched doors and take corrective action. Allegiant Air suggested that these methods are sufficient to prevent any events caused by improperly closed and latched FCDs. Allegiant Air suggested that a modification to the FCDs is unnecessary if this procedure is followed.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. EASA, as the State of Design Authority for Airbus products, has determined after conducting a risk analysis that an unsafe condition exists. EASA's analysis took into consideration the in-service events in the worldwide fleet that occurred despite some of the design or maintenance improvement methods that were implemented, including the ones noted by Allegiant Air. We agree with EASA's decision to mitigate the risk by mandating a new design solution, which makes it apparent to the flight crew on a pre-flight walk-around that an FCD is not latched. Although the commenter's specific proposal is not considered acceptable to address the identified unsafe condition, operators may request approval of an AMOC using the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, provided they can show they have an alternative means to ensure the FCD is properly closed and locked. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this SNPRM:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Modification, placard installation, and re-identification (or replacement) of FCD Up to 11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 $9,730 $10,665 (for two engines) $4,266,000 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): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-9074; Product Identifier 2016-NM-097-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 13, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

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

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

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

    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214 and -216 airplanes.

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

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of engine fan cowl door (FCD) losses on airplanes equipped with CFM56 engines due to operator failure to close the FCD during ground operations. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight loss of an engine FCD and possible consequent damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification of Affected FCDs

    Within 35 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish concurrently the actions in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016.

    (1) Modify the left-hand and right-hand FCDs on engines 1 and 2 that have an old part number (“Old P/N”), as applicable, as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD.

    (2) Install a placard on the box located at the bottom of the 120-volt unit (120 VU) panel, or at the bottom of the coat stowage, as applicable to airplane configuration.

    (3) Re-identify the modified left-hand and right-hand FCDs with the new part number (“New P/N”), as applicable, as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD.

    EP27SE17.013 EP27SE17.014 (h) Optional Replacement of Affected FCDs With New Door Design

    Replacing the FCDs having a P/N listed as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD with the FCDs having the corresponding P/Ns listed as “New P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD. The replacement must be done in accordance with instructions 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).

    (i) Compliance Information for Airplanes on Which Airbus Modification 157517 Is Embodied

    Accomplishment of Airbus modification 157517 on an airplane in production is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD, provided that no FCD having a part number identified as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD is installed on that airplane.

    (j) Compliance Information for Airplanes on Which Airbus Modification 157519 or Modification 157521 Is Embodied

    Accomplishment of Airbus modification 157519 or modification 157521 on an airplane in production is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

    (k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    (1) For any airplane with any FCD installed having a P/N identified as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: No person may install on an airplane a part number identified as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD after accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD on that airplane.

    (2) For any airplane with only FCDs installed having P/Ns that are identified as “New P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: No person may install on any airplane a part number identified as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD.

    (l) Installation of Approved Parts

    Installation on an airplane of a right-hand or left-hand FCD having a part number approved after the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD for that airplane only, provided the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD are met.

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

    (2) The FCD installation must be accomplished in accordance with airplane modification instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 00, dated December 18, 2015.

    (n) 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 (o)(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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0257 dated December 16, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9074.

    (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) 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. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 19, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20566 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0825; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-12] Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Norman, OK; and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oklahoma City, OK AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D airspace and establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area at University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, Norman, OK. The University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport requested establishment of this airspace. This action would also amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, Norman, OK, contained within the Oklahoma City, OK, airspace description, by removing the Oklahoma Westheimer Airport ILS localizer and realigning the southwest segment. Additionally, the name of the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database in Class D airspace. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0825; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D airspace, establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, Norman, OK, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0825; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-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 Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B 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:

    Amending Class D airspace to within a 4.2-mile radius (reduced from 4.5-miles) of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport (formerly University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airpark), Norman, OK, and updating the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

    Establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 4.2-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport; and

    Amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at University of Oklahoma, Westheimer Airport, Norman, OK, contained within the Oklahoma City, OK, airspace description, to within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from 8.9-miles), removing the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport ILS Localizer from the airspace description, and realigning the southwest extension to 2-miles (increased from 1.8-miles) either side of the 213° bearing from the airport (previously referenced from the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport ILS Localizer) from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.8-miles southwest of the airport.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this 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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000. Class D Airspace. ASW OK D Norman, OK [Amended] Norman, University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, OK (Lat. 35°14′ 44″ N., long. 97°28′ 20″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,700 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, excluding that airspace within the Oklahoma City, OK, Class C airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002. Class E Airspace Designated as a Surface Area. ASW OK E2 Norman, OK [New] Norman, University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, OK (Lat. 35°14′44″ N., long. 97°28′20″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,700 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport excluding that airspace within the Oklahoma City, OK, Class C airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW OK E5 Oklahoma City, OK [Amended] Oklahoma City, Will Rogers World Airport, OK (Lat. 35°23′35″ N., long. 97°36′03″ W.) Oklahoma City, Tinker AFB, OK (Lat. 35°24′53″ N., long. 97°23′12″ W.) Norman, University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, OK (Lat. 35°14′44″ N., long. 97°28′20″ W.) Goldsby, David Jay Perry Airport, OK (Lat. 35°09′18″ N., long. 97°28′13″ W.) Oklahoma City, Clarence E. Page Municipal Airport, OK (Lat. 35°29′17″ N., long. 97°49′25″ W.) El Reno Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 35°28′22″ N., long. 98°00′21″ W.) Oklahoma City, Wiley Post Airport, OK (Lat. 35°32′03″ N., long. 97°38′49″ W.) Oklahoma City, Sundance Airport, OK (Lat. 35°36′07″ N., long. 97°42′22″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius of Will Rogers World Airport, and within an 8.2-mile radius of Tinker AFB, and within a 6.7-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 213° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.8 miles southwest of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of David Jay Perry Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Clarence E. Page Municipal Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of El Reno Regional Airport, and within a 6.8-mile radius of Wiley Post Airport, and within a 6.8-mile radius of Sundance Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 20, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20572 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 19 CFR Part 201 Rules of General Application AGENCY:

    International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) proposes to amend provisions of its Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning the Privacy Act. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to delete certain exemptions that pertain only to systems of records that the Commission is removing and to add exemptions that pertain to a new system of records.

    DATES:

    To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received by 5:15 p.m. on November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number MISC-043, by any of the following methods:

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

    Agency Web site: https://edis.usitc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Web site.

    Mail: For paper submission. U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112A, Washington, DC 20436.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112A, Washington, DC 20436. During the hours of 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number (MISC-043), along with a cover letter stating the nature of the commenter's interest in the proposed rulemaking. Persons filing comments must file the original document electronically on https://edis.usitc.gov; any personal information provided will be viewable by the public. For paper copies, a signed original and 8 copies of each set of comments should be submitted to Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112A, Washington, DC 20436.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https://edis.usitc.gov and/or the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112A, Washington, DC 20436.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, telephone (202) 205-2000, or Clara Kuehn, Office of the General Counsel, telephone (202) 205-3012, United States International Trade Commission. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. This rulemaking seeks to amend provisions of the Commission's existing Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning the Privacy Act. The Commission invites the public to comment on these proposed rules amendments.

    Consistent with its ordinary practice, the Commission is issuing these proposed amendments in accordance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedure in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). That procedure entails the following steps: (1) Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) solicitation of public comments on the proposed amendments; (3) Commission review of public comments on the proposed amendments; and (4) publication of final amendments at least thirty days prior to their effective date.

    The Commission proposed to revise 19 CFR 201.32, which governs exemptions to certain Privacy Act requirements. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), the Commission proposes to delete two exemptions currently set forth in paragraphs 201.32(a) and (b). These two exemptions pertain only to Inspector General Investigative Files (General) and Inspector General Investigative Files (Criminal). These exemptions will be deleted because the Office of Inspector General is removing these two Privacy Act systems of records. The Commission proposes to redesignate paragraph 201.32(c) as 201.32(a) and correct a typographical error in that paragraph. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), the Commission proposes to add exemptions for a new Privacy Act system of records, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Records. The Commission proposes to promulgate this new exemption at paragraph (b) to protect from disclosure classified and other sensitive information.

    Regulatory Analysis of Proposed Amendments to the Commission's Rules

    The Commission certifies that the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because it does not create an economic impact and does not affect small entities. The proposed amendments are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Commission.

    The proposed amendments to the Commission's rules do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    No actions are necessary under title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) because the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    The Commission has determined that the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules do not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

    The proposed amendments to the Commission's rules do not have Federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999).

    The proposed amendments to the Commission's rules are not “major rules” as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et. seq.).

    List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 201

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1335, the United States International Trade Commission proposes to amend 19 CFR part 201 as follows:

    PART 201—RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 1335; 19 U.S.C. 2482, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 201.32, remove paragraphs (a) and (b); redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (a); revise the first sentence of redesignated paragraph (a); and add paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 201.32 Specific exemptions.

    (a) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (5) and (6), records contained in the system entitled “Personnel Security Investigative Files” have been exempted from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I) and (f) of the Privacy Act. * * *

    (b) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), records contained in the system entitled “Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Records” have been exempted from subsections c(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I) and (f) of the Privacy Act. Pursuant to section 552a(k)(1) of the Privacy Act, the Commission exempts records that contain properly classified information pertaining to national defense or foreign policy. Application of exemption (k)(1) may be necessary to preclude individuals' access to or amendment of such classified information under the Privacy Act. Pursuant to section 552a(k)(2) of the Privacy Act, and in order to protect the effectiveness of Inspector General investigations by preventing individuals who may be the subject of an investigation from obtaining access to the records and thus obtaining the opportunity to conceal or destroy evidence or to intimidate witnesses, the Commission exempts records insofar as they include investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. However, if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit to which he is otherwise entitled under Federal law due to the maintenance of this material, such material shall be provided to such individual except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 21, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20615 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408; FRL-9968-19-Region 3] Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve a portion of the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware that pertains to the interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). In the Final Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408 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, 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:

    Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, 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, “State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,” that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 11, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20599 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 RIN 0648-BG98 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Whiting; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 21-3; Trawl Rationalization Program AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 21-3 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP) to the Secretary of Commerce for review. If approved, Amendment 21-3 would modify the PCGFMP to manage darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch (POP), currently overfished species, as set-asides or “soft-caps” rather than with allocations, or “hard caps” for the Pacific whiting at-sea sectors. This action is intended to avoid the risk of early fishery closures of the at-sea Pacific whiting sectors due to incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish and POP, while keeping the catch of these species within their respective annual catch limits (ACLs).

    DATES:

    Comments on Amendment 21-3 must be received on or before Sunday, November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0102, 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-2017-0102, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Barry A. Thom., Regional Administrator, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115.

    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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    Information relevant to Amendment 21-3, which includes a memo categorically excluding this action from National Environmental Protection Act, a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) are available for public review during business hours at the NMFS West Coast Regional Office at 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115, or by requesting them via phone or the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Copies of additional reports referred to in this document may also be obtained from the Council.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Miako Ushio, phone: 206-526-4644, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access

    FMP Amendment 21-3, background information and documents are available at the Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fishery-management-plan/groundfish-amendments-in-development/. Additional background documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html.

    Background

    NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Washington, Oregon, and California under the PCGFMP. The Council prepared and NMFS implemented the PCGFMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and by regulations at 50 CFR parts 600 and 660. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any federal management plan (FMP) or plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish a notice that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 21-3 to the PCGFMP is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 21-3 to the PCGFMP.

    Amendment 21-3 consists of two components: (1) Changes in the way two overfished species, darkblotched rockfish and POP are managed in the Pacific whiting at-sea sectors, and (2) allows automatic closure by NMFS of one or both of the at-sea sectors in the event that the set-aside plus the available reserve for unforeseen catch events (known as the “buffer”) of either species is projected to be reached.

    The Council has been exploring alternative management measures with the purpose of substantially reducing the risk of the Pacific whiting at-sea sectors (mothership [MS] and catcher processor [CP]) not attaining their respective whiting allocations based on the incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish or POP, which are currently overfished species subject to rebuilding plans. Timeliness and administrative feasibility were important considerations of the Council in exploring these measures. The proposed FMP amendment is intended to be an interim solution to address the immediate needs of the at-sea sectors with regards to incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish or POP.

    NMFS welcomes comments on the proposed FMP amendment through the end of the comment period. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 21-3 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public review and comment on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 21-3 in the near future. For public comments on the proposed rule to be considered in the approval or disapproval decision on Amendment 21-3, those comments must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20692 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 186 Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 21, 2017.

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

    Comments regarding this information collection received by October 27, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

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

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: National Animal Health Monitoring System; Emergency Epidemiologic Investigations.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0376.

    Summary of Collection: Collection and dissemination of animal health data and information is mandated by 7 U.S.C. 391, the Animal Industry Act of 1884, which established the precursor of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services, the Bureau of Animal Industry. Legal requirements for examining and reporting on animal disease control methods were further mandated by 7 U.S.C. 8308, 8314 of the Animal Health Protection Act, “Detection, Control, and Eradication of Disease and Pests,” May 13, 2002. Emergency epidemiologic investigations will allow Veterinary Services Officials to rapidly implement prevention and control measures, keep the public informed, and keep international markets open.

    Need and Use of the Information: The primary objective of the National Animal Health Monitoring System's emergency epidemiologic investigations are to provide for the prevention and control of animal disease and protect the U.S. livestock and poultry populations from the introduction and spread of domestic, emerging, zoonotic, and foreign animal disease. APHIS will collect information using a questionnaire, telephone interview, or direct interview. APHIS will use the data collected to: (1) Identify the scope of the problem (2) Define and describe the affected population and the susceptible population; (3) Predict or detect trends in disease occurrence and movement; (4) Understand the risk factors for disease; (5) Estimate the cost of disease control and develop intervention options; (6) Make recommendations for disease control; (7) Provide parameters for animal disease spread models; (8) Provide lessons learned and guidance on the best ways to avoid future outbreaks based on thorough analysis of data from current outbreak(s); and (9) Identify areas for further research e.g. mechanisms of disease transfer, vaccine technology, and diagnostic testing needs.

    Description of Respondents: Private Sector; State, Local, and Tribal Governments; and Individuals or Households.

    Number of Respondents: 8,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 5,798.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20619 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III) AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection to conduct the Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be sent to: Anthony Panzera, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Anthony Panzera at 703-305-2576, or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Anthony Panzera at [email protected], or 703-305-2309.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III).

    Form Number: N/A.

    OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

    Expiration Date: Not yet determined.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Abstract: The Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III) is designed to provide nationally representative estimates of improper payments in the WIC program arising from errors in the certification or denial of WIC applicants, to investigate potential State and local agency characteristics that may correlate with these errors, and to assess WIC participants' reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the program. The NSWP-III builds on three previous studies and reports spanning several decades.

    The study has two purposes. The first is to obtain the data necessary to accomplish the study objectives. To accomplish study objectives, the following data collections are planned: (1) A Certification Survey with up to 2,000 recently certified WIC participants; (2) a Denied Applicant Survey with up to 240 WIC applicants who did not qualify for the program; (3) a Program Experiences Survey with up to 1,500 current WIC program participants; (4) a Former Participant Case Study with 520 inactive WIC program participants who have stopped redeeming WIC benefits; (5) a State Agency Survey with 90 agencies, including 50 States and the District of Columbia, the 34 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs), and 5 U.S. Territories; (6) and a Local WIC Agency Survey with 965 local WIC agency directors. In addition, 20 Local WIC Agency staff will be maintaining a Denied Applicants Log.

    The second purpose is to pilot a new methodology for the future annual estimates of improper payments in the WIC program. Under this approach, the data collection instruments and recruiting materials, developed for the 2018 Certification Survey and Denied Applicants Survey, will be fielded in 2019 and 2020 by replacing one of 10 “panels” from the 2018 sample with newly selected WIC participants (180 per year) and denied applicants (24 per year); these data will be pooled with the extant 2018 data from the remaining (non-replaced) panels to update the estimates of improper payments in each year. Data collection activities in these 2 years will include recruiting recently certified WIC participants to complete the Certification Survey and denied WIC applicants to complete the Denied Applicant Survey.

    Comments are invited on the following topics: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, and/or other forms of information technology.

    Affected Public: This study includes two respondent groups: (1) State, Local, and Tribal Government (State WIC agency directors and local WIC agency directors); and (2) Individuals or Households (current WIC program participants, denied applicants, and former WIC participants).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 6,517. This figure includes 4,355 respondents and 2,162 non-respondents. This study will include six data collection activities.

    The initial sample for the State Agency Survey will consist of 90 State WIC agency directors. Assuming that 100 percent respond to the web-based survey, the resulting respondent sample will include approximately 90 State WIC agency directors.

    Local WIC agency directors will also complete a web-based survey, the Local WIC Agency Survey. The initial sample will include 965 local WIC agency directors and, assuming an 80 percent response rate, the final sample will result in 772 local WIC agency directors.

    The initial sample size for the Certification Survey is 2,000 current WIC program participants. A portion of the current WIC program participants in the sample unit may complete up to two surveys, the Certification Survey and the Program Experiences Survey. A sample of 1,000 current WIC program participants, a subset of the sample of 2,000 WIC program participants, will be recruited to complete both the Certification Survey and the Program Experiences Survey interviews in person during the same visit. Assuming an 80 percent response rate for each survey, a total of 1,600 current WIC program participants will complete Certification Surveys, and 800 will also complete the Program Experiences Survey.

    An additional sample for the Program Experiences Survey will be administered by telephone or in person during a follow-up home visit. The initial sample size is 1,500 current WIC program participants, and assuming an 80 percent response rate, the final sample will include 1,200 current program participants (750 by telephone and 450 in-person).

    The Denied Applicant Survey, administered in person, will include an initial sample of 240 recently denied WIC program applicants. Assuming an 80 percent response rate, the final sample will be 192 recently denied WIC program applicants.

    This study includes a Former WIC Participant Case Study with an initial sample of 520 former WIC program participants. As a qualitative case study with people who are no longer participating in the program, the expected response rate is 30 percent. This response rate will result in 156 respondents who will be asked screening questions. Assuming 20 percent are screened out, the final screened sample will be 125 former participants.

    The Alternative Methodology Pilot Studies will take place in 2019 and 2020. The initial sample size for each is estimated to be 180 current WIC program participants for the Certification Survey sample and 24 recently denied WIC program applicants for the Denied Applicant Survey sample. Assuming an 80 percent response rate for each sample, the resulting respondent sample will include approximately 150 current WIC program participants and 19 recently denied WIC program applicants for each year.

    As part of the 2018 data collection activities, an initial sample of 20 Local Agency staff will maintain a Denied Applicants Log. FNS expects that all of the staff will maintain this log.

    There is pre-testing burden associated with this collection that was reviewed and approved by OMB on September 22, 2016, under OMB #0584-0606 FNS Generic Clearance Pre-Testing, Pilot, and Field Test Studies. A total of 2,213 responses and 102 burden hours were approved under the generic clearance.

    Estimated Frequency of Responses per Respondent: FNS estimates that the frequency of responses per respondent will average 5.35 responses per respondent (including respondents and non-respondents) across the entire collection. State agency directors, local WIC agency directors, denied applicants, and former WIC participants will provide a one-time response during their respective survey or interview. A portion of the current WIC participants will be invited to complete two surveys, although most will provide responses on only one survey. Each respondent type may be contacted several times by telephone, mail, email, and home visits to encourage participation and, when appropriate, to remind the respondent of the importance of their contribution to this study.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: The total number of responses (including respondents and non-respondents) expected across all respondent categories is 34,859. FNS estimates that 34,839 responses are related to the reporting burden and 20 responses for the recordkeeping burden.

    Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time will vary depending on the respondent category and will range from 1.2 minutes (0.02 hours) to 3 hours. The following table outlines the estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent. Across all study respondents and non-respondents, the average estimated time per response is 0.14 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours on Respondents: 4,853.98 hours (see table below for estimated total annual burden hours by type of respondent). This includes 4,793.98 hours for reporting and 60 hours for recordkeeping.

    Dated: September 12, 2017. Brandon Lipps, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. BILLING CODE 3410-30-P EN27SE17.002 EN27SE17.003 EN27SE17.004 EN27SE17.005
    [FR Doc. 2017-20117 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-C
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee (Committee) at Stennis Space Center and Ocean Springs, Mississippi.

    DATES AND TIMES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 25, 2017 from 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., and Thursday, October 25, 2017 from 8:30-2:45 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date agenda.

    ADDRESSES:

    On Tuesday, October 24th and Thursday, October 26th, the meeting will be held in the Santa Rosa Room, Building #11111, John C. Stennis Space Center, MS 39529. On Wednesday, October 25th, the meeting will be held at Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, University of Southern Mississippi, 703 E Beach Dr., Ocean Springs, MS 39564. Venues may be subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carl C. Gouldman, Designated Federal Official, U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee, U.S. IOOS Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Station 2605, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone 240-533-9456; Fax 301-713-3281; Email [email protected] or visit the U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee Web site at http://ioos.noaa.gov/community/u-s-ioos-advisory-committee/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee was established by the NOAA Administrator as directed by Section 12304 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). The Committee advises the NOAA Administrator and the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 12302 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and other appropriate matters as the Under Secretary refers to the Committee for review and advice. The Committee will provide advice on:

    (a) Administration, operation, management, and maintenance of the System;

    (b) expansion and periodic modernization and upgrade of technology components of the System;

    (c) identification of end-user communities, their needs for information provided by the System, and the System's effectiveness in dissemination information to end-user communities and to the general public; and

    (d) any other purpose identified by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere or the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.

    The meeting will be open to public participation with a 15-minute public comment period on October 24, 2017, from 2:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m., on October 25, 2017, from 4:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., and on October 26, 2017, from 2:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. (check agenda on Web site to confirm time.) The Committee expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. Written comments should be received by the Designated Federal Official by October 20, 2017 to provide sufficient time for Committee review. Written comments received after October 20th, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Pre-registration is required for those attending in person. Please send your name as it appears on driver's license and the organization/company affiliation you represent to Carl Gouldman. This information must be received by October 13, 2017. Additionally, a webinar will be provided. Sign-up information for the webinar will be posted on the Web site.

    Matters To Be Considered: The meeting will focus on ongoing committee priorities, including discussions stakeholder needs specific to the Gulf Coast region and developing the next set of recommendations. The latest version of the agenda will be posted at http://ioos.noaa.gov/community/u-s-ioos-advisory-committee/.

    Special Accomodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carl C. Gouldman, Designated Federal Official at 240-533-9456 by October 13, 2017.

    Dated: September 11, 2017. Carl C. Gouldman, Director, U.S. IOOS Program, National Ocean Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20679 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF607 Determination of Overfishing or an Overfished Condition AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This action serves as a notice that NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has found that the following stocks are, or remain, subject to overfishing or overfished: South Atlantic red grouper, Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack, and Northwestern Atlantic witch flounder. NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, notifies the appropriate fishery management council (Council) whenever it determines that overfishing is occurring, a stock is in an overfished condition, or a stock is approaching an overfished condition.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regina Spallone, (301) 427-8568.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to section 304(e)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2), NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, must notify Councils, and publish in the Federal Register, whenever it determines that a stock or stock complex is subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition.

    NMFS has determined that South Atlantic red grouper is subject to overfishing and overfished. This determination is based on the most recent stock assessment (SEDAR 53), finalized in 2017, using data through 2015. This assessment supports a finding of subject to overfishing because the current estimate of fishing mortality (F) is above the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), and overfished because the spawning stock biomass estimate is less than the minimum stock size threshold (MSST). NMFS informed the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council that they must take action to end overfishing immediately on this stock and implement conservation and management measures to rebuild it.

    NMFS has determined that the Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack is subject to overfishing. This determination is based on the most recent assessment (SEDAR 33 Update), finalized in 2016, using data through 2015. This assessment supports a finding of subject to overfishing because the current estimate of F is above the MFMT. This stock remains overfished because the spawning stock biomass estimate is less than the MSST. NMFS informed the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council that they must take action to end overfishing immediately on this stock and implement conservation and management measures to rebuild it.

    NMFS has determined that Northwestern Atlantic witch flounder is still overfished and the overfishing status is unknown. The assessment peer review panel for this stock rejected the most recent benchmark assessment, finalized in 2017, using data through 2015. However, this stock is at historical low levels and other signs of poor stock condition support this stock remaining listed as overfished. Lack of similar reliable indicators for overfishing status support changing the overfishing status of this stock to unknown. NMFS has notified the New England Fishery Management Council that they must implement conservation and management measures to rebuild this stock.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20686 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Non-Commercial Permit and Reporting Requirements in the Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish Fishery AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara, (808) 725-5175 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Regulations at 50 CFR 665, Subpart C, require that all participants (including vessel owners, operators, and crew) in the boat-based non-commercial bottomfish fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone around the main Hawaiian Islands obtain a federal bottomfish permit. This collection of information is needed for permit issuance, to identify actual or potential participants in the fishery, determine qualifications for permits, and to help measure the impacts of management controls on the participants in the fishery. The permit program is also an effective tool in the enforcement of fishery regulations and serves as a link between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and fishermen.

    Regulations at 50 CFR 665 require that all vessel owners or operators in this fishery submit a completed logbook form at the completion of each fishing trip. These logbook reporting sheets document the species and amount of species caught during the trip. The reporting requirements are crucial to ensure that NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will be able to monitor the fishery and have fishery-dependent information to develop an Annual Catch Limit for the fishery, evaluate the effectiveness of management measures, determine whether changes in fishery management programs are necessary, and estimate the impacts and implications of alternative management measures.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0577.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or small businesses.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes per paper permit application; 5 minutes per online permit application; 2 hours per appeal of denied permit; 20 minutes per trip report logsheet.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 98.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $3,850 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20711 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS).

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0515.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 206.

    Average Hours per Response: 35 minutes for a tLandings landing report; 30 minutes for catcher/processor eLandings landing report; 18 minutes for active response and 5 minutes for inactive response for pilot catcher vessel trawl electronic logbook (eLog); 15 minutes for active response and 5 minutes for inactive response for catcher vessel eLog, catcher/processor eLog and mothership eLog; 15 minutes for eLandings registration; 10 minutes for eLandings/seaLandings landing report; and 20 minutes for at-sea response; and 10 minutes for shoreside and stationary floating processor response for eLandings/seaLandings production report.

    Burden Hours: 22,850.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for an extension of a current information collection.

    eLandings, seaLandings, and tLandings are data entry components of the Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS), which is a collaborative program run by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Alaska Regional Office, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). eLandings, seaLandings, and tLandings provide the Alaska fishing industry with a consolidated electronic means of reporting production and landings of commercial fish and shellfish to multiple management agencies with a single reporting system. NMFS collects groundfish harvest and production data for fishery management plan species in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). ADF&G collects harvest data for groundfish species taken in State of Alaska waters and has responsibility for some fisheries in the EEZ, such as lingcod and black rockfish. ADF&G and NMFS cooperatively manage the Crab Rationalization Program fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. NMFS and IPHC cooperatively manage Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) for Pacific halibut and sablefish in both State waters and in the EEZ.

    eLandings is a web-based application used by vessels and processors to report groundfish, crab, Pacific halibut, and sablefish production and landings data. Processors with limited internet access, such as the at-sea fleet, use eLandings client desktop software named seaLandings, provided by NMFS, and submit the required reports as email attachments or via direct transmit over the Internet. Once data are entered and submitted, the User must print daily through eLandings each landing report, production report, logbook report, and if an IFQ delivery, each IFQ receipt. The parties to the information must acknowledge the accuracy of the printed reports by signing them and entering the date signed. In addition, the User must make the printed copies available upon request of NMFS observers and authorized officers.

    tLandings is a software application for tender vessels that records landings data on a USB flash drive and creates a printable fish ticket. The fish ticket is printed on board the tender vessel and signed by the delivering catcher vessel operator. When the tender vessel delivers to the shoreside processor, the shoreside processor uploads the landing information on the USB flash drive into eLandings.

    Some of the benefits of IERS include improved data quality, automated processing of data, improved process for correcting or updating information, availability of more timely data for fishery managers, and reduction of duplicative reporting of similar information to multiple agencies.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Frequency: Daily and on occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20712 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy (USMA) AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting will take place.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, October 20, 2017, Time 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting will be required to show a government photo ID upon entering West Point in order to gain access to the meeting location. All members of the public are subject to security screening.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Haig Room, Jefferson Hall, West Point, New York 10996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Deadra K. Ghostlaw, the Designated Federal Officer for the committee, in writing at: Secretary of the General Staff, ATTN: Deadra K. Ghostlaw, 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996; by email at: [email protected] or [email protected]; or by telephone at (845) 938-4200.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The USMA BoV provides independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters related to morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and any other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.

    Purpose of the Meeting: This is the 2017 Annual Meeting of the USMA BoV. Members of the Board will be provided updates on Academy issues. Agenda: Introduction; Board Business; Superintendent Topics (Mission, Vision, Priorities); Accreditation; Strategic Imperative 1—Develop Leaders of Character: Academic Individual Advanced Development (AIAD), Military Individual Advanced Development (MIAD), Semester Abroad; Strategic Imperative 2—Foster Relevance and Preeminence: Build Diverse and Effective Teams, Retention trends and efforts, Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Education Program; Faculty and Staff Excellence: Distinguished Chairs; Intellectual Capital: Research Centers; Stewardship: FY19 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) Cyber Engineering Academic Center (CEAC)/Parking Garage/Cemetery, Hiring authority (A76), National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) impact on Keller Army Community Hospital (KACH), Memorialization; Culture of Excellence; Semester Highlights.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first to arrive basis. Attendees are requested to submit their name, affiliation, and daytime phone number seven business days prior to the meeting to Mrs. Ghostlaw, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting, and members of the public attending the committee meeting will not be permitted to present questions from the floor or speak to any issue under consideration by the committee. Because the committee meeting will be held in a Federal Government facility on a military post, security screening is required. A government photo ID is required to enter post. In order to enter the installation, members of the public must first go to the Visitor Control Center trailer in the Visitor Center's parking lot and go through a background check before being allowed access to the installation. Members of the public then need to park in Buffalo Soldier Field parking lot and ride the Central Post Area (CPA) shuttle bus to the meeting location. Please note that security and gate guards have the right to inspect vehicles and persons seeking to enter and exit the installation. Members of the public should allow at least an hour for security checks and the shuttle ride. The United States Military Academy, Jefferson Hall, is fully handicap accessible. Wheelchair access is available at the south entrance of the building. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Mrs. Ghostlaw, the committee's Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mrs. Ghostlaw, the committee Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mrs. Ghostlaw, the committee Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the committee. The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the committee Chairperson and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the committee until its next meeting.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting. However, the committee Designated Federal Official and Chairperson may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the committee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20671 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2017-0010; OMB Control Number 0704-0341] Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Acquisition of Information Technology AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement for use through December 31, 2017. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration date.

    DATES:

    DoD will consider all comments received by November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0341, using any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB Control Number 0704-0341 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer Johnson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jennifer Johnson, 571-372-6100. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the Internet at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dfars/index.htm. Paper copies are available from Ms. Jennifer Johnson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 239, Acquisition of Information Technology, and the associated clauses at DFARS 252.239-7000 and 252.239-7006; OMB Control Number 0704-0341.

    Needs and Uses: This requirement provides for the collection of information from contractors regarding security of information technology; tariffs pertaining to telecommunications services; and proposals from common carriers to perform special construction under contracts for telecommunications services. Contracting officers and other DoD personnel use the information to ensure that information systems are protected; to participate in the establishment of tariffs for telecommunications services; and to establish reasonable prices for special construction by common carriers.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Number of Respondents: 750.

    Responses per Respondent: 14, approximately.

    Annual Responses: 10,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 0.62 hour, approximately.

    Annual Burden Hours: 6,542.

    Summary of Information Collection

    The clause at DFARS 252.239-7000, Protection Against Compromising Emanations, requires that the contractor provide, upon request of the contracting officer, documentation that information technology used or provided under the contract meets appropriate information assurance requirements.

    The clause at DFARS 252.239-7006, Tariff Information, requires that the contractor provide to the contracting officer upon request—

    (1) A copy of the contractor's existing tariffs (including changes);

    (2) Before filing, a copy of any application to a Federal, State, or other regulatory agency for new rates, charges, services, or regulations relating to any tariff or any of the facilities or services to be furnished solely or primarily to the Government, and, upon request, a copy of all information, material, and data developed or prepared in support of or in connection with such an application; and

    (3) Any application submitted by anyone other than the contractor that may affect the rate or conditions of services under the agreement or contract.

    DFARS 239.7408 requires the contracting officer to obtain a detailed special construction proposal from a common carrier that submits a proposal or quotation that has special construction requirements related to the performance of basic telecommunications services.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20637 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2017-0011; OMB Control Number 0704-0390] Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Taxes AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement for use through December 31, 2017. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for three additional years.

    DATES:

    DoD will consider all comments received by November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0390, using any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB Control Number 0704-0390 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571-372-6099. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the Internet at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dfars/index.htm. Paper copies are available from Mr. Mark Gomersall, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 229, Taxes, and related clause at DFARS 252.229-7010; OMB Control Number 0704-0390.

    Needs and Uses: DoD uses this information to determine if DoD contractors in the United Kingdom have attempted to obtain relief from customs duty on vehicle fuels in accordance with contract requirements.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Number of Respondents: 11.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 11.

    Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 44.

    Summary of Information Collection

    The clause at DFARS 252.229-7010, Relief from Customs Duty on Fuel (United Kingdom), is prescribed at DFARS 229.402-70(j) for use in solicitations issued and contracts awarded in the United Kingdom that require the use of fuels (gasoline or diesel) and lubricants in taxis or vehicles other than passenger vehicles. The clause requires the contractor to provide the contracting officer with evidence that the contractor has initiated an attempt to obtain relief from customs duty on fuels and lubricants, as permitted by an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20636 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2017-0004; OMB Control Number 0704-0446] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 27, 2017.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Evaluation Factor for Use of Members of the Armed Forces Selected Reserve; OMB Control Number 0704-0446.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Number of Respondents: 13.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 13.

    Average Burden per Response: Approximately 20 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 620.

    Needs and Uses: DFARS 215.370-3 prescribes the use of the provision at DFARS 252.215-7005, Evaluation Factor for Employing or Subcontracting with Members of the Selected Reserve, in solicitations that include an evaluation factor to provide a preference for offerors that intend to perform the contract using employees or individual subcontractors who are members of the Selected Reserve. The documentation provided by an offeror with their proposal will be used by contracting officers to validate that Selected Reserve members will be utilized in the performance of the contract. This information collection implements a requirement of section 819 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163).

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20638 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2017-0004; OMB Control Number 0704-0446] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 27, 2017.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Evaluation Factor for Use of Members of the Armed Forces Selected Reserve; OMB Control Number 0704-0446.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Number of Respondents: 13.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 13.

    Average Burden per Response: Approximately 20 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 620.

    Needs and Uses: DFARS 215.370-3 prescribes the use of the provision at DFARS 252.215-7005, Evaluation Factor for Employing or Subcontracting with Members of the Selected Reserve, in solicitations that include an evaluation factor to provide a preference for offerors that intend to perform the contract using employees or individual subcontractors who are members of the Selected Reserve. The documentation provided by an offeror with their proposal will be used by contracting officers to validate that Selected Reserve members will be utilized in the performance of the contract. This information collection implements a requirement of section 819 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163).

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20645 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2017-0003; OMB Control Number 0704-0386] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 27, 2017.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Small Business Programs; OMB Control Number 0704-0386.

    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Number of Respondents: 41.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 41.

    Average Burden per Response: approximately 1 hour.

    Annual Response Burden Hours: 41.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection includes requirements relating to DFARS part 219, Small Business Programs. DoD needs this information to improve administration under the small business subcontracting program and to evaluate a contractor's past performance in complying with its subcontracting plan.

    The information collection requirement at DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, becomes necessary when: (1) A prime contractor has identified specific small business concerns in its subcontracting plan; and (2) subsequent to award substitutes one of the small businesses identified in its subcontracting plan with a firm that is not a small business. The intent of this information collection is to alert the contracting officer of this situation.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20643 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2017-0002; OMB Control Number 0704-0252] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 27, 2017.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Part 251, Use of Government Sources by Contractors, and an associated clause at DFARS 252.251-7000, Ordering from Government Supply Sources; OMB Control Number 0704-0252.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Number of Respondents: 654.

    Responses per Respondent: 5.

    Annual Responses: 3,270.

    Average Burden per Response: .5 hour.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,635.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection includes requirements relating to DFARS part 251, Contractor Use of Government Supply Sources and the clause at DFARS 252.251-7000, Ordering from Government Supply Sources. This information collection permits contractors to place orders from Government supply sources, including Federal Supply Schedules, requirements contracts, and Government stock. Contractors are required to provide a copy of their written authorization to use Government supply sources with their order. The authorization is used by the Government source of supply to verify that a contractor is authorized to place such orders and under what conditions.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20642 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-59] 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, [email protected] or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217, [email protected]; 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 16-59 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN27SE17.000 Transmittal No. 16-59 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 Bahrain

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 406 million Other $ 676 million TOTAL $ 1.082 billion

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Twenty-three (23) F-110-GE-129 engines (includes 3 spares) Twenty-three (23) APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars (includes 3 spares) Twenty-three (23) Modular Mission Computers (includes 3 spares) Twenty-three (23) Embedded Global Navigation Systems/LN260 EGI (includes 3 spares) Forty (40) LAU-129 Launchers Twenty-three (23) Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDG) Twenty-five (25) AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Pods (MDE Determination Pending) Two (2) AIM-9X Sidewinder Missiles Two (2) AGM-88B/C High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) Two (2) WGU-43 Guidance Control Unit (GCU) (for GBU-24 Paveway III) Two (2) BSU-84 Air Foil Group (AFG) (for GBU-24 Paveway III) Five (5) KMU-572 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Tailkits (for GBU-38 JDAM and GBU-54 Laser JDAMs) Two (2) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) Guided Test Vehicles Two (2) AGM-84 Harpoon Missiles Three (3) MAU-210 ECCG (for GBU-50 Enhanced Paveway II) Three (3) BLU-109 Inert Bomb Bodies Four (4) MK-82/BLU 111 Inert Bomb Bodies Two (2) FMU 152 or FMU 139 Fuzes

    Non-MDE includes: One (1) Joint Mission Planning System, one (1) F-16V simulator, twenty (20) AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS systems, one (1) avionics level test station, six (6) DB-110 Advanced Reconnaissance Systems, two (2) LAU-118A Launchers, forty-five (45) AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS Radio or equivalent, twenty-three (23) AN/APX126 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) system or equivalent, twenty-three (23) cryptographic appliques, two (2) CATM-9L/M, two (2) AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM), three (3) MXU-651 AFG (for GBU-50 Enhanced Paveway II), four (4) DSU-38 Precision Laser Guidance Sets (PLGS) (for GBU-54 Laser JDAM), four (4) AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) Captive Flight Vehicles (CFV), three (3) MK-84/BLU 117 Inert Bomb Bodies, two (2) FMU-152 D-1 Inert Fuzes, three (3) BRU-57 Bomb Racks, two (2) BRU-61 Bomb Racks for SDB, two (2) ADU-890 SDB adapter cable for CMBRE, two (2) ADU-891 AMRAAM/AIM 9X adapter cable for CMBRE, telemetry for all flight test assets, secure communications equipment, spares and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support services, containers, missile support and test equipment, integration test, site survey, design, construction studies/analyses/services, cybersecurity, critical computer resources support, force protection and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (X7-D-QAU)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS Case BA-D-SGA—$330.9 million—21 Apr 87 FMS Case BA-D-SGG—$234.9 million—20 Feb 98

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc. Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Articles or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: September 8, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Bahrain—Upgrade of F-16 Block 40 Aircraft to F-16V Configuration

    The Government of Bahrain requested to upgrade its existing twenty (20) F-16 Block 40 aircraft to the F-16V configuration. The requested sale comprises of twenty-three (23) F-110-GE-129 engines (includes 3 spares); twenty-three (23) APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars (includes 3 spares); twenty-three (23) Modular Mission Computers (includes 3 spares); twenty-three (23) Embedded Global Navigation Systems/LN260 EGI (includes 3 spares); twenty-three (23) Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDGs) (includes 3 spares); forty (40) LAU-129 launchers; twenty-five (25) AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Pods; two (2) AIM-9X Sidewinder Missiles; two (2) AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM); two (2) WGU-43 Guidance Control Unit (GBU) Guidance Control Unit (GCU) (for GBU-24 Paveway III); two (2) BSU-84 Air Foil Group (AFG) (for GBU-24 Paveway III); five (5) KMU-572 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Tailkits (for GBU-38 JDAM and GBU-54 Laser JDAM); two (2) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); two (2) AGM-84 Harpoon Exercise Missiles; three (3) MAU-210 ECCG (for GBU-50 Enhanced Paveway II); three (3) BLU-109 Inert Bomb Bodies; four (4) MK-82/BLU-111 Inert Bomb Bodies; and two (2) GMU-152 or FMU-139 Fuzes.

    This sale also includes one (1) Joint Mission Planning System, one (1) F-16V simulator, twenty (20) AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS Systems, one (1) avionics level test station, six (6) DB-110 Advanced Reconnaissance Systems, two (2) LAU-118A Launchers, forty-five (45) AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS Radio or equivalent, twenty-three (23) Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) systems or equivalent; twenty-three (23) cryptographic appliques; two (2) CATM-9L/M, two (2) AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM), three (3) MXU-651 AFG (for GBU-50 Enhanced Paveway II), four (4) DSU-38 Precision Laser Guidance sets (PLGS) (for GBU-54 Laser JDAM), four (4) AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW) Captive Flight Vehicles (CFV), three (3) MK-84/BLU-117 Inert Bomb Bodies, two (2) FMU-152 D-1 Inert Fuzes, three (3) BRU-57 Bomb Racks, two (2) BRU-61 Bomb Racks for SDB, two (2) ADU-890 SDB adapter cable for CMBRE, two (2) ADU-891 AMRAAM/AIM-9X adapter cable for CMBRE, Telemetry for all flight test assets secure communication equipment, spares and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support services, containers, missile support and test equipment, integration test, site survey, design, construction studies/analyses/services, associate operations, maintenance, training, support facilities, cybersecurity, critical computer resources support, force protection, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $1.082 billion.

    This proposed 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 which has been and continues to be an important security partner in the region. Our mutual defense interests anchor our relationship and the Royal Bahraini Air Force (RBAF) plays a significant role in Bahrain's defense.

    The proposed sale improves Bahrain's capability to meet current and future threats. Bahrain will use this capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. The upgraded F-16Vs will provide an increase in the capability of existing aircraft to sustain operations, meet training requirements, and support transition training for pilots to the upgraded aircraft. This upgrade will improve interoperability with U.S. forces and other regional allies. Bahrain will have no difficulty absorbing this upgrade into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of at least five (5) additional U.S. Government representatives to Bahrain.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-59 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. This sale will involve the release of sensitive technology to Bahrain. The F-16V weapon system is UNCLASSIFIED, except as noted below. The aircraft utilizes the F-16C/D airframe and features advanced avionics and systems. It contains the General Electric F-110-GE-129 engine, AN/APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars, digital flight control system, internal and external electronic warfare equipment, AN/APX126 Advanced Identification Friend of Foe (AIFF), LN260 Embedded GPS/INS (EGI), Modular Mission Computers (MMC), improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDG), AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Pods, Multifuncation Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS), operational flight trainer, and software computer programs.

    2. Sensitive and/or classified (up to SECRET) elements of the proposed F-16V include hardware, accessories, components, and associated software: AN/APX126 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), cryptographic appliques, Secure communication equipment, Joint Mission Planning System, F-16V Simulator, AN/ALQ- 211 AIDEWS Pods, Avionics Level Test Station, DB-110 Advanced Reconnaissance Systems, LAU-118A Launchers, and F-110-GE-129 engine. Additional sensitive areas include operating manuals and maintenance technical orders containing performance information, operating and test procedures, and other information related to support operations and repair. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters and other similar critical information.

    3. The AN/APG-83 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar upgrade for the F-16. It includes higher processor power, higher transmission power, more sensitive receiver electronics, infrared signature and Advanced Interference Blanker Units, and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), which creates higher-resolution ground maps from a greater distance than existing mechanically scanned array radars (e.g., APG-68). The upgrade features an increase in detection range of air targets, increases in processing speed and memory, as well as significant improvements in all modes. The highest classification of the radar is SECRET.

    4. AN/ALQ-211 Airborne Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suite (AIDEWS) provides passive radar warning, wide spectrum RF jamming, and control and management of the entire Electronic Warfare (EW) system. The commercially developed system software and hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. The system is classified SECRET when loaded with a U.S. derived EW database, which will be provided.

    5. AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS Radio or equivalent is considered UNCLASSIFIED, but employs cryptographic technology that is classified SECRET. Classified elements include operating characteristics, parameters, technical data, and keying material.

    6. AN/APX-126 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) is a system capable of transmitting and interrogating Mode V and is supported by cryptographic appliques. It is UNCLASSIFIED unless/until Mode IV and/or Mode V operational evaluator parameters are loaded into the equipment. Classified elements of the AIFF system include software object code, operating characteristics, parameters, and technical data are SECRET.

    7. The Embedded GPS-INS (EGI) LN-260 is a sensor that combines GPS and inertial sensor inputs to provide accurate location information for navigation and targeting. The EGI LN-260 is UNCLASSIFIED. The GPS crypto variable keys needed for highest GPS accuracy are classified up to SECRET.

    8. The Modular Mission Computer (MMC) is the central computer for the F-16. As such it serves as the hub for all aircraft subsystems, avionics, and weapons. The hardware and software (Operational Flight Program—OFP) are classified up to SECRET.

    9. An Improved Programmable Display Generator (iPDG) will support the two color MFD's, allowing the pilot to set up to twelve display programs. One of them includes a color Horizontal Situation Display, which will be, provide the pilot with a God's eye view of the tactical situation. Inside is a 20MHz, 32-bit Intel 80960 Display Processor and a 256K battery-backed RAM system memory. The color graphics controller is based on the T.I. TMS34020 Raster Graphics Chipset. The IPDG also contains substantial growth capabilities including a high-speed Ethernet interface (10/100BaseT) and all the hardware necessary to support digital moving maps. The digital map function can be enabled by the addition of software. The hardware and software are UNCLASSIFIED.

    10. Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) is a multi-platform PC-based mission planning system. JMPS hardware is UNCLASSIFIED, but the software is classified up to SECRET.

    11. DB-110 is a tactical airborne reconnaissance system. This capability permits reconnaissance missions to be conducted from very short range to long range by day or night. It is an under-the-weather, podded system that produces high resolution, dual-band electro-optical and infrared imagery. The DB-110 system is UNCLASSIFIED.

    12. The SNIPER (AN/AAQ-33) targeting system is UNCLASSIFIED and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in in electro-optical clarity and haze, and low light targeting capability. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified CONFIDENTIAL. Overall system classification is SECRET.

    13. The AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) is a supersonic, air launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. The missile employs active radar target tacking, proportional navigation guidance, and active Radio Frequency target detection. It can be launched day or night, in any weather and increases pilot survivability by allowing the pilot to disengage after missile launch and engage other targets. AMRAAM capabilities include lookdown/shootdown, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high- and low-flying maneuvering targets. The AMRAAM AUR is classified CONFIDENTIAL, major components and subsystems range from UNCLASSIFIED to CONFIDENTIAL, and technical data and other documentation are classified up to SECRET.

    14. AIM-9X Sidewinder missile is an air-to-air guided missile that employs a passive infrared (IR) target acquisition system that features digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. The AIM-9X tactical and CATM guidance units are subsets of the overall missile and were recently designated as MDE. The AIM-9X is CONFIDENTIAL, Major components and subsystems range from UNCLASSIFIED to CONFIDENTIAL, and technical data and other documentation are classified up to SECRET. The overall system classification is SECRET.

    The AIM-9X is launched from the aircraft using a LAU-129 guided missile launcher (currently in country inventory). The LAU-129 provides mechanical and electrical interface between missile and aircraft. The LAU-129 system is UNCLASSIFIED.

    15. AGM-88B/C HARM is an air-to-ground missile designed to destroy or suppress enemy radars used for air defense. HARM has wide frequency coverage, is target reprogrammable in flight, and has a reprogrammable threat library. Hardware and software for the system is classified SECRET and ballistics data is CONFIDENTIAL. The overall system classification is SECRET.

    The AGM-88 is launched from the aircraft using a LAU-118A guided missile launcher.

    The LAU-118A provides mechanical and electrical interface between missile and aircraft.

    The LAU-118A system is UNCLASSIFIED.

    16. GBU-10/12: 2,000-lb (GBU-10) and 500-lb (GBU-12) laser-guided bombs (LGBs). The LGB is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides on laser energy reflected off of the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal general purpose warhead and the laser guidance guides the weapon into the target. Laser designation for the weapon can be provided by a variety of laser target designators. The LGB consists of a laser guidance kit, a computer control group and a warhead specific air foil group, that attach to the nose and tail of Mk 84, Mk 82 bomb bodies.

    a. The GBU-10: This is a 2,000lb (BLU-117 B/B or Mk 84) General Purpose (GP) guided bomb fitted with the MXU-651 airfoil and the MAU-169 or MAU-209 computer control group to guide to its laser designated target.

    b. The GBU-12: This is a 500lb (BLU-111/B or Mk-82) guided bomb fitted with the MXU- 650 airfoil and the MAU-169 or MAU 209 computer control group to guide to its laser designated target. The weapon components are UNCLASSIFIED. Some technical data and vulnerabilities/countermeasures are SECRET. The overall weapons classification is SECRET.

    17. GBU-31 and GBU-38 are 2000lb/500lb Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM).

    JDAM is a guidance kit that converts existing unguided free-fall bombs into precision-guided “smart” munitions. By adding a new tail section containing Inertial Navigation System (INS) guidance/Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance to existing inventories of BLU-109, BLU-111 and BLU-117 or Mk-84 and Mk-82 bombs, the cost effective JDAM provides highly accurate weapon delivery in any “flyable” weather. The INS, using updates from the GPS, helps guide the bomb to the target via the use of movable tail fins. The JDAM and all of its components are UNCLASSIFIED, technical data for JDAM is classified up to SECRET.

    JDAMs use the Global Positioning System (GPS) Precise Positioning System (PPS), which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.

    18. GBU-49 and GBU-50 are 500lb/2000lb dual mode laser and GPS guided munitions respectively. The GBU-49/50 use airfoil groups similar to those used on the GBU-12 and GBU-10 for inflight maneuverability. Weapons components are UNCLASSIFIED. Technical data and countermeasures/vulnerabilities are SECRET. The overall system classification is SECRET.

    GBU-49/50s use the GPS PPS, which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.

    19. GBU-54/56 are the 500lb/2000lb Laser JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munitions): These weapons use the DSU-38/B/DSU-40 laser Sensor respectively and use both Global Position System aided inertial navigations and/or laser guidance to execute threat targets. The laser sensor enhances standard JDAM's reactive target capability by allowing rapid prosecution of fixed targets with large initial target location errors (TLE). The DSU-38/B Laser sensor also provides the additional capability to engage mobile targets. The addition of the DSU-38 laser sensor combined with additional cabling and mounting hardware turns a GBU-38 JDAM into a GBU-54 Laser JDAM. The addition of the DSU-40 laser sensor combined with additional cabling and mounting hardware turns a GBU-31 JDAM into a GBU-56 Laser JDAM. Weapons components are UNCLASSIFIED. Technical data and countermeasures/vulnerabilities are SECRET. The overall system classification is SECRET.

    Laser JDAMs use the GPS PPS, which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.

    20. GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB): The GBU-39 small diameter bomb (SDB) is a 250-lb class precision guided munition that allows aircraft with an ability to carry a high number of bombs. The weapon offers day or night, adverse weather, precision engagement capability against pre-planned fixed or stationary soft, non-hardened, and hardened targets, with a significant standoff range. Aircraft are able to carry four SDBs in place of one 2,000-lb bomb. The SDB is equipped with a GPS-aided inertial navigation system to attack fixed, stationary targets such as fuel depots and bunkers. The SDB and all of its components are UNCLASSIFIED; technical data is classified up to SECRET.

    SDBs use the GPS PPS, which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.

    21. The GBU-24 Paveway III is a 2000lb class low level laser guided munition that can be employed at high, medium, and low altitudes. GBU-24 components are UNCLASSIFIED. Target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures, and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET.

    22. The AGM-154 is a family of low-cost standoff weapons that are modular in design and incorporate either a sub-munition or a unitary warhead. Potential targets for Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) range from soft targets, such as troop concentration, to hardened point targets like bunkers. The AGM-154C is a penetrator weapon that carries a BROACH warhead and pay load. The AGM-154 hardware, software and maintenance data is UNCLASSIFIED. Vulnerabilities and countermeasures are classified up to SECRET. Overall system classification is SECRET.

    The AGM-154 uses the GPS PPS, which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.

    23. The AGM-84L-1 Harpoon is a non-nuclear tactical weapon system currently in service in the U.S. Navy and in 28 other foreign nations. It provides a day, night, and adverse weather, standoff air-to-surface capability. Harpoon Block II is a follow on to the Harpoon missile that is no longer in production. Harpoon Block II is an effective Anti-Surface Warfare missile.

    The AGM-84L-1 incorporates components, software, and technical design information that are considered sensitive. These elements are essential to the ability of the Harpoon missile to selectively engage hostile targets under a wide range of operational, tactical and environmental conditions. The following Harpoon components being conveyed by the proposed sale that are considered sensitive and are classified CONFIDENTIAL include: IIR seeker, INS, OPP software and, missile operational characteristics and performance data. The overall system classification is SECRET.

    24. M61A l 20mm Vulcan Cannon: The 20mm Vulcan cannon is a six barreled automatic cannon chambered in 20x120mm with a cyclic rate of fire from 2,500-6,000 shots per minute. This weapon is a hydraulically powered air cooled Gatlin gun used to damage/destroy aerial targets, suppress/incapacitate personnel targets, and damage or destroy moving and stationary light materiel targets. The M61Al and its components are UNCLASSIFIED.

    25. Software, hardware, and other data/information, which is classified or sensitive, is reviewed prior to release to protect system vulnerabilities, design data, and performance parameters. Some end-item hardware, software, and other data identified above are classified at the CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET level. Potential compromise of these systems is controlled through management of the basic software programs of highly sensitive systems and software-controlled weapon systems on a case-by-case basis.

    26. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware or software source code in this proposed sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of systems with similar or advance capabilities.

    27. This sale is necessary in 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.

    28. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government.

    29. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    30. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Bahrain.

    [FR Doc. 2017-20707 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-35] 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, [email protected] or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217, [email protected]; 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 16-35 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN27SE17.001 Transmittal No. 16-35 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 Kingdom of Bahrain

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $21 million Other $ 6 million Total $27 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    One-hundred and seven (107) TOW 2A, Radio Frequency (RF) Missiles (BGM-71-4B-RF) Seventy-seven (77) TOW 2B Aero, RF Missiles (BGM-71F-Series) Thirty-seven (37) TOW Bunker Buster (BB), RF Missiles (BGM-71-Fl-RF)

    Non-MDE: This request also includes the following Non-MDE: Government Technical Support/Logistical Support, Contractor Technical Support, and other associated equipment and services.

    (iv) Military Department: Army

    (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: September 8, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Bahrain—TOW 2ARF Missile (BGM-71-4B-RF), TOW 2B RF Missiles (BGM-71F-Series), TOW BB RF Missiles (BGM-71-F1 RF)

    The Government of Bahrain has requested:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    One-hundred and seven (107) TOW 2A, Radio Frequency (RF) Missiles (BGM-71-4B-RF) Seventy-seven (77) TOW 2B Aero, RF Missiles (BGM-71F-Series) Thirty-seven (37) TOW Bunker Buster (BB), RF Missiles (BGM-71-Fl-RF)

    Non-MDE: The request also includes the following Non-MDE: Government Technical Support/Logistical Support, Contractor Technical Support, and other associated equipment and services.

    The estimated value of MDE is $21 million. The total overall estimated value is $27 million.

    This proposed 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, which has been and continues to be an important security partner in the region.

    The proposed sale of TOW 2A, TOW 2B, TOW BB missiles, and technical support will advance Bahrain's efforts to develop an integrated ground defense capability. Bahrain will use the capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. This sale will also improve interoperability with United States and regional allies. Bahrain 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 Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to Bahrain for multiple periods for equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout and new equipment training. There will be no more than two contractor personnel in Bahrain at any one time and all efforts will take less than two weeks in total.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-35 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The Radio Frequency (RF) TOW 2A Missile (BGM-71E-4B-RF) is a direct-attack missile designed to defeat armored vehicles, reinforced urban structures, field fortifications and other such targets. TOW missiles are fired from a variety of TOW launchers used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. The TOW 2A RF missile can be launched from the same launcher platforms as the existing wire-guided TOW 2A missile without modification to the launcher. The TOW 2A missile (both wire & RF) contains two tracker beacons for the launcher to track and guide the missile in flight. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by a RF link contained within the missile case. The hardware, software, and technical publications to be provided with the sale are UNCLASSIFIED. The highest level of classified information authorized for released through the sale of the TOW 2A is SECRET.

    2. The RF TOW 2B Aero Missile (BGM-71 F-3-RF) is a fly-over-shootdown missile designed to defeat armored vehicles. TOW missiles are fired from a variety of TOW Launchers in the inventories of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. The TOW 2B Aero RF missile can be launched from the same launcher platforms as wire-guided TOW 2B and TOW 2B Aero missiles without modification to the launcher. The TOW 2B missile (both wire-guided & RF) contains two tracker beacons for the launcher to track and guide the missile in flight. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by an RF link contained within the missile case. The hardware and technical publications to be provided with the sale are UNCLASSIFIED. Software algorithms for the system are classified SECRET. The highest level of classified information released through the sale of the TOW 2B is SECRET.

    3. The RF TOW Bunker Buster (BB), BGM-71-Fl-RF is a variant of the TOW 2A that replaces the TOW 2A warhead with a high explosive blast-fragmentation warhead. This bulk charge warhead is effective against reinforced concrete walls, light armored vehicles, and earth and timber bunkers. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by an RF link contained within the missile case. The hardware, software, and technical publications to be provided with the sale are UNCLASSIFIED. The highest level of classified information released through the sale of the TOW 2B is SECRET.

    4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements of these variants, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    5. A determination has been made by the U.S. Government that the Government of Bahrain can provide 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.

    6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Bahrain.

    [FR Doc. 2017-20700 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Notice of Availability of The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study—Brandon Road Draft Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement—Will County, Illinois AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is extending the comment period for the report “The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study—Brandon Road Draft Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement—Will County, Illinois” (GLMRIS-Brandon Road) for 45 days in response to stakeholder requests for an extension, from October 2, 2017 to November 16, 2017.

    DATES:

    The comment period is extended for the draft GLMRIS-Brandon Road report published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2017 (82 FR 36760). Comments must be received or postmarked by November 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted in the following ways:

    GLMRIS Project Web site: Use the Web comment function found at http://glmris.anl.gov.

    Mail: Send comments to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, ATTN: GLMRIS-Brandon Road Comments, 231 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60604.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Andrew Leichty, Program Manager, by mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Clock Tower Building (ATTN: Leichty), P.O. Box 2004, Rock Island, IL 61204-2004, by phone: 309-794-5399; or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The GLMRIS authority directed USACE to identify the range of options and technologies available to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other aquatic pathways. The goal of the GLMRIS-Brandon Road Study is to prevent the upstream transfer of aquatic nuisance species while minimizing impacts to existing waterways uses and users.

    Comments, including the names and addresses of those who comment, received during the comment period will be posted on the GLMRIS project Web site. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted, considered, and posted. Commenters may indicate that they do not wish to have their name or other personal information made available on the Web site. However, USACE cannot guarantee that information withheld from the Web site will be maintained as confidential. Persons requesting confidentiality should be aware that, under the Freedom of Information Act, confidentiality may be granted in only limited circumstances.

    Dated: September 18, 2017. Dennis W. Hamilton, Chief, Programs and Project Management Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20680 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Record of Decision for Final Supplement I to the Final Environmental Statement, Mississippi River Between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri and Illinois AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Record of Decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), St. Louis District, is issuing this notice to advise Federal, state, and local government agencies, affected Tribes, and the public that USACE has signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for Final Supplement I to the Final Environmental Statement, Mississippi River between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works). The ROD was rendered to declare that, after careful consideration of the purpose of and need for the Regulating Works Project, the analysis contained in Final Supplement I, input from the public, affected Tribes, state and Federal agencies, and other interested parties, and based on the Regulating Works Project's Congressional authority and continued benefit of remaining construction, USACE has determined that the public interest will best be served by implementing the Continue Construction Alternative (hereafter, the Selected Plan).

    DATES:

    The USACE Mississippi Valley Division Commander, Major General Michael C. Wehr, signed the ROD on August 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Planning and Environmental Division North, CEMVP-PD-P (Attn: Mr. Kip Runyon), 1222 Spruce St., St. Louis, MO 63103-2833.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kip Runyon, Environmental Planner, Regional Planning and Environmental Division North, at 314-331-8396 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    USACE is charged with obtaining and maintaining a navigation channel on the Middle Mississippi River (MMR) that is nine feet deep and 300 feet wide with additional width in bends as necessary (commonly called the Regulating Works Project). As authorized by Congress, the Regulating Works Project is obtained by construction of revetment, rock removal, and river training structures to maintain bank stability and ensure adequate, reliable navigation depth and width. The Regulating Works Project is maintained through dredging and any needed maintenance to constructed features. The long-term goal of the Regulating Works Project, as authorized by Congress, is to obtain and maintain a navigation channel at the authorized dimensions and to reduce federal expenditures by alleviating the amount of annual maintenance dredging through the construction of river training structures. The Selected Plan consists of continuing with construction of new river training structures and revetment for navigation purposes until such time as the costs of placing more structures, including costs for any mitigation, are no longer justified by the resultant reduction in repetitive dredging quantities and associated costs. The Selected Plan also involves continuing to dredge as necessary, completing known bankline stabilization work to reduce the risk of a channel cutoff, placing additional revetment, and continuing to maintain existing structures.

    The remaining construction associated with the Selected Plan is currently estimated from programmatic analysis to require approximately 4.4 million tons (2.9 million cubic yards) of rock. Dredge quantities are expected to decrease from their current average annual quantity of approximately 4 million cubic yards to approximately 2.4 million cubic yards after construction of new river training structures and any compensatory mitigation is complete. These estimates are based on assumptions of Congressional funding levels, rock prices, dredging costs, sediment loads, mitigation costs, etc. Because these assumptions are uncertain, the estimated quantity of construction could differ from actual implementation.

    Environmental impacts of the work associated with the Selected Plan will continue to be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. Placement of river training structures is expected to increase the acreage of low-velocity habitat that is considered important habitat for many MMR fish species. However, placement of river training structures is also expected to reduce shallow to moderate-depth, moderate-to high-velocity habitat that is important for some MMR fish guilds. Analysis of the impacts of the Selected Plan to main channel border habitat suggests that future construction of river training structures will result in the consideration of compensatory mitigation measures. The specific impacts of each work area and any necessary compensatory mitigation measures will be covered in Tier II Site Specific Environmental Assessments, as appropriate.

    The ROD, Final Supplement I, and supporting documentation are available at: http://www.mvs.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/SEIS/Library.aspx.

    Brian L. Johnson, Chief, Environmental Compliance Branch, Regional Planning and Environmental Division North.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20672 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Notice of Proposed Methodology for the 2018 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Report AGENCY:

    Delaware River Basin Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the methodology proposed to be used in the 2018 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Report is available for review and comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on the assessment methodology or recommendations for the consideration of data sets should be submitted in writing before 5:00 p.m. EST on December 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments will be accepted via email to [email protected]gov, with “Water Quality Assessment 2018” as the subject line; via fax to 609-883-9522; via U.S. Mail to DRBC, Attn: Water Quality Assessment 2016, P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360; via private carrier to DRBC, Attn: Water Quality Assessment 2016, 25 Cosey Road, West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360; or by hand to the latter address. All submissions should have the phrase “Water Quality Assessment 2018” in the subject line and should include the name, address (street address optional) and affiliation, if any, of the commenter.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John Yagecic, Manager, Water Quality Assessment, [email protected], 609-883-9500, ext. 271.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC” or “Commission”) is an interstate and federal compact agency that was created in 1961 by concurrent legislation of the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States Government for purpose of jointly managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin.

    DRBC currently is compiling data for the 2018 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Report (“2018 Assessment”) required by the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The 2018 Assessment will present the extent to which waters of the Delaware River and Bay are attaining designated uses in accordance with Section 305(b) of the CWA and the Commission's Water Quality Regulations, 18 CFR part 410, and will identify impaired waters, which consist of waters in which surface water quality standards are not being met.

    The proposed assessment methodology to be used in the 2018 Assessment is available for review at the following URL:

    http://www.nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/WQAssessmentReport2018_MethodologyDRAFTsept2017.pdf.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. Pamela M. Bush, Commission Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20682 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6360-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0098] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Lead Agency Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements Under Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0098. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-32, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: State Lead Agency Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

    OMB Control Number: 1820-0682.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,268.

    Abstract: OMB Information Collection 1820-0682 was created to reflect the requirements in Part C of the IDEA in 20 U.S.C.1431-1443 and the final Part C regulations. These regulations require the 56 State lead agencies (LAs) that receive Part C funds to collect and maintain information or data and, in some cases, report information or data to other public agencies or to the public. These record-keeping requirements are not new and do not require reporting to the Secretary. This Information Collection was created to ensure that all Part C information responsibilities are documented and have been submitted for OMB review. The following table describes the information under Part C to be collected or maintained and identifies the legal requirement for each collection. These required listed collections are consolidated into 1820-0682.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20658 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2017-ICCD-0122] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants—State-Level Activity Funds AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0122. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-44, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tawanda Avery, 202-453-6471.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants—State-Level Activity Funds.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0711.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 52.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 520.

    Abstract: Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants—State-Level Activity Funds. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), provides funds to States to prepare, train, and recruit high-quality teachers, principals, and other school leaders. These funds are provided to districts through Title II, Part A (Supporting Effective Instruction Grants). The purpose of these surveys is to provide the U.S. Department of Education with a better understanding of how State Educational Agencies (SEAs) utilize these funds. This survey also collects data on teacher, principal, and other school leader effectiveness and retention for States to meet new reporting requirements.

    Similar data have been collected under the Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A prior to reauthorization of ESEA. This OMB clearance request is to continue these types of analyses, but using new data collection instruments updated to reflect changes due to the reauthorization of ESEA by the ESSA. The request is to begin data collection and analyses for the 2018-19 school year and subsequent years.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20713 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Extension of the Application Deadline Date for Certain Fiscal Year 2018 Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Institute of Education Sciences extends, for certain prospective eligible applicants described elsewhere in this notice, the deadline date for transmittal of applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 under the Education Research and Development Centers competition and the Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Policy and Practice in Special Education competition, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers 84.305C and 84.324N. The Institute takes this action to allow more time for the preparation and submission of applications by prospective eligible applicants affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

    The extension of the application deadline date for this competition is intended to help eligible applicants that are located in a Federally declared disaster area, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in Texas and Florida to compete fairly with other eligible applicants under these competitions.

    DATES:

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For the Education Research and Development Centers competition, Corinne Alfeld at [email protected] or (202) 245-8203. For the Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Policy and Practice in Special Education competition, Amy Sussman at [email protected] or (202) 245-7424.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 30, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 24695) a notice inviting applications (NIA) for new awards for FY 2018 for Education Research and Development Centers and Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Policy and Practice in Special Education. The application deadline in the NIA was September 21, 2017. We are extending the application deadline for this competition for applicants in affected areas in Texas and Florida in order to allow applicants more time to prepare and submit their applications.

    Eligibility: The extension of the application deadline date in this notice applies to eligible applicants under the Education Research and Development Centers competition and the Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Policy and Practice in Special Education competition, CFDA numbers 84.305C and 84.324N, that are located in a Federally declared disaster area, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (see www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema), in the State of Texas in the counties of Aransas, Bee, Bexar, Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, Dallas, Fort Bend, Galveston, Goliad, Harris, Jackson, Kleberg, Liberty, Matagorda, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Tarrant, Travis, Victoria, and Wharton.

    The extension of the application deadline date in this notice also applies to eligible applicants that are located in a Federally declared disaster area, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (see http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema), in the State of Florida, which includes all counties in that State.

    In accordance with the NIA, eligible applicants for these competitions have the ability and capacity to conduct scientifically valid research. Eligible applicants include, but are not limited to, nonprofit and for-profit organizations and public and private agencies and institutions, such as colleges and universities.

    Note:

    All information in the NIA published on May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24695), for these competitions remains the same, except for the deadline date.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 9501 et seq.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to either of the program contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Thomas Brock, Commissioner for Education Research, Delegated the Duties of the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20684 Filed 9-22-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2017-ICCD-0099] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual State Application Under Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act as Amended in 2004 AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0099. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-44, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Annual State Application under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as Amended in 2004.

    OMB Control Number: 1820-0550.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 560.

    Abstract: In order to be eligible for a grant under 20 U.S.C. 1433, a State must provide assurance to the Secretary that the State has adopted a policy that appropriate early intervention services are available to all infants and toddlers with disabilities in the State and their families, including Indian infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families residing on a reservation geographically located in the State, infants and toddlers with disabilities who are homeless children and their families, and has in effect a statewide system that meets the requirements of 20 U.S.C. 1435. Some policies, procedures, methods, and descriptions must be submitted to the Secretary.

    This collection is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20659 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0088] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Report of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention Services and of Program Settings Where Services Are Provided in Accordance With Part C, and Report on Infants and Toddlers . . . AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0088. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-42, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Amanda Hoffman, 202-245-6951.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Report of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention Services and of Program Settings Where Services are Provided in Accordance with Part C, and Report on Infants and Toddlers.

    OMB Control Number: 1820-0557.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 5,311.

    Abstract: This data collection provides instructions and forms necessary for States to report the number of children receiving early intervention services under Part C of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the settings in which these children are provided services, and the reasons by which these children exit Part C of IDEA. The form satisfies reporting requirements and is used by OSEP to monitor State agencies and for Congressional reporting.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20660 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. PP-438] Application for Presidential Permit; Central Maine Power Company AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Central Maine Power Company (CMP) has applied for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an electric transmission line across the United States border with Canada.

    DATES:

    Comments or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments or motions to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202-586-5260 or via electronic mail at [email protected]; Rishi Garg (Program Attorney) at 202-586-0258.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038.

    On July 27, 2017, Central Maine Power Company (CMP or “The Applicant”) filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit for the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) project. CMP has its principal place of business in Augusta, Maine. CMP Group, Inc. owns 100% of outstanding shares of CMP's common stock. CMP Group, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avangrid Networks, Inc., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AVANGRID, a New York corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: AGR). Iberdrola, a corporation (sociedad anónima) organized under the laws of the Kingdom of Spain (BME: IBE), directly owns approximately 81.5% of the outstanding shares of AVANGRID common stock, with the remaining shares publicly traded on the New York Stock exchange. Iberdrola's shares are listed in the Madrid, Bilbao, Barcelona, and Valencia (Spain) stock exchanges.

    CMP proposes to construct, operate, maintain, and connect the NECEC project, which would cross the U.S.-Canada (Québec-Maine) international border in Beattie Township, Maine. From that point, the NECEC's transmission facilities would extend to the point of first interconnection with the ISO-New England operated power grid at CMP's Larrabee Road Substation in Lewiston, Maine. The proposed project includes (1) a 100-foot segment crossing the border; (2) approximately 145.3 miles of +/−320 kilovolt (kV) overhead high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line from the border crossing to (3) a new 345 kV alternating current (AC) to +/−320 kV HVDC 1,200 megawatt (MW) converter station at the Merrill Road Substation in Lewiston, Maine (Merrill Road Converter Station), which would convert the electrical power from DC to AC; (4) a 1.2-mile, above-ground 345 kV AC transmission line from Merrill Road Converter Station to the existing Larrabee Road Substation (and associated rebuild of 0.8 mile of lower-voltage 34.5 kV transmission line to make room in the corridor for the new 1.2-mile line); and (5) a 345 kV line terminal at the Larrabee Road Substation. The proposed project facilities would be capable of transmitting up to 1200 MW of power.

    Since the restructuring of the electric industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export electric energy over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the Federal Power Act and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888 (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996)), as amended.

    Procedural Matters: Any person may comment on this application by filing such comment at the address provided above. Any person seeking to become a party to this proceeding must file a motion to intervene at the address provided above in accordance with Rule 214 of FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Two copies of each comment or motion to intervene should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above.

    Additional copies of such motions to intervene also should be filed directly with: Randall S. Rich, Pierce Atwood LLP, 1875 K Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006, [email protected], AND Bernardo Escudero Morandeira, Central Maine Power Company, 83 Edison Drive, Augusta, Maine 04336, [email protected], AND Jared S. des Rosiers, Pierce Atwood LLP, 254 Commercial Street, Portland, Maine 04101, [email protected].

    Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, determines the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions, and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant to the public interest. Also, DOE must obtain the concurrences of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/international-electricity-regulatio-2.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 21, 2017. Christopher A. Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, National Electricity Delivery Division, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20681 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-694-001.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-09-21 Compliance—Transmission Control Agreement Notice of Effective Date to be effective 9/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1639-002.

    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: AEP GR Stuart Station Unit 1 Reactive Filing RS3 to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1717-002.

    Applicants: Dynegy Conesville, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Second Deficiency Letter to be effective 5/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1718-002.

    Applicants: Dynegy Dicks Creek, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Second Deficiency Letter to be effective 8/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1719-002.

    Applicants: Dynegy Killen, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Second Deficiency Letter to be effective 8/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1720-002.

    Applicants: Dynegy Miami Fort, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Second Deficiency Letter to be effective 8/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5178.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1840-000.

    Applicants: Canton Mountain Wind, LLC.

    Description: Fourth Supplement to June 15, 2017 Canton Mountain Wind, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2523-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Attachment Y to Add A Competitive Project Minimum Threshold to be effective 11/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2524-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Florida Power & Light Company Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 8/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2525-000.

    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Florida Power & Light Company Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 8/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2526-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Florida Power & Light Company Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 8/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2527-000.

    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Florida Power & Light Company Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 8/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2528-000.

    Applicants: Lathrop Irrigation District.

    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Tariff Provisions of Lathrop Irrigation District.

    Filed Date: 9/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170920-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2529-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2888R2 Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5028.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2529-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2888R2 Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. NITSA and NOA) to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2530-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Ameren Illinois-Wabash Valley-EnerStar Switching Agreement to be effective 8/22/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2531-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4794; Queue AC1-116 (WMPA) to be effective 8/22/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5068.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2532-000.

    Applicants: Massachusetts Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017 Rate Update Filing for Massachusetts Electric Borderline Sales Agreement to be effective 8/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2533-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE and NEPOOL—Clarifying Revisions to Force Majeure to be effective 11/21/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5094.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2534-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 300 to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2535-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PSCo—PSCoES—LGIA—464—0.0.0 Refiling to be effective 9/22/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170921-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/17.

    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: September 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20668 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0406; FRL-9966-02] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for June 2017 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from June 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0406, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, Information Management Division (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8593; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR parts 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from June 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

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

    Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic reports on the status of new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

    For the 36 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; The date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

    Table 1—PMNs Received From June 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017 Case No. Received date Projected
  • notice end date
  • Manufacturer importer Use Chemical
    P-17-0116 6/1/2017 8/30/2017 Cardolite Corporation (S) Polyurethane foam to raise the concrete slab (G) Cashew nut shell liquid, branched polyester-polyether polyol. P-17-0176 6/9/2017 9/7/2017 CBI (G) Battery ingredient (G) Carbonic acid, alkyl carbomonocyclic ester. P-17-0191 6/19/2017 9/17/2017 CBI (S) Polyurethane catalyst (G) Alkyldiamine, aminoalkyl dimethylaminoalkyl dimethyl-, reaction products with propylene oxide. P-17-0223 6/26/2017 9/24/2017 CBI (G) Additive, open, non-dispersive use (G) Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with 2-[(2-aminoalkyl)amino]alkanol, compounds (compds) with alkylene oxide-glycidyl o-tolyl ether polymer dihydrogen phosphate alkyl ether. P-17-0239 6/5/2017 9/3/2017 CBI (G) Adhesive for open non-descriptive use (G) Substituted carboxylic acid, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene, hexanedioic acid, alpha-hydro-omega-hydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], 1,1′-methylenebis[4-isocyanatobenzene], 2,2′-oxybis[ethanol], 1,1′-oxybis[2-propanol] and 1,2-propanediol. P-17-0245 6/8/2017 9/6/2017 CBI (G) Adhesive for open, non-dispersive use (G) Polyfluoropolyether derivative. P-17-0270 6/7/2017 9/5/2017 CBI (G) Low refractive index coating (G) Alkyl perfluorinated acryloyl ester. P-17-0282 6/13/2017 9/11/2017 Elantas Pdg, Inc (S) This is a component of a mixture that is used as an impregnating varnish for stators and motors (S) Isocyanic acid, polymethylenepolyphenylene ester, caprolactam- and phenol-blocked. P-17-0290 6/28/2017 9/26/2017 Cytec Industries, Inc (S) Resins for use in adhesive formulations which will be used for bonding of aircraft and industrial parts (G) Cycloaliphatic phenolic epoxy adduct. P-17-0302 6/5/2017 9/3/2017 CBI (G) Synthetic lubricant for contained use industrial lubricant (G) Neopentyl glycol ester of mixed linear and branched carboxylic acids. P-17-0303 6/23/2017 9/21/2017 CBI (G) Component for tire (G) Modified copolymer of buta-1,3-diene and styrene. P-17-0312 6/9/2017 9/7/2017 CBI (G) Additive for electrocoat formulas (G) Organic acid, compds. with bisphenol A-epichlorohydrin-polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether polymer-disubstituted amine-disubstituted polypropylene glycol reaction products. P-17-0313 6/9/2017 9/7/2017 CBI (G) Additive for electrocoat formulas (G) Phenol, 4,4′-(1-methylethylidene)bis-, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane and alpha-(2-oxiranylmethyl)-omega-(2-oxiranylmethoxy)poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], reaction products with disubstituted amine and disubstituted polypropylene glycol, organic acid salts. P-17-0314 6/9/2017 9/7/2017 CBI (G) Additive for electrocoat formulas (G) Organic acid, 2-substituted-, compds. with bisphenol A-epichlorohydrin-polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether polymer-disubstituted amine-disubstituted polypropylene glycol reaction products. P-17-0315 6/9/2017 9/7/2017 CBI (G) Additive for electrocoat formulas (G) Phenol, 4,4′-(1-methylethylidene)bis-, polymer with alpha-(2-substituted-methylethyl)-omega-(2-substituted-methylethoxy)poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane and alpha-(2-oxiranylmethyl)-omega-(2-oxiranylmethoxy)poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], alkylphenyl ethers, reaction products with disubstituted amine, organic acid salts. P-17-0316 6/9/2017 9/7/2017 CBI (G) Additive for electrocoat formulas (G) Organic acid, compds. with bisphenol A-epichlorohydrin-disubstituted polypropylene glycol-polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether polymer alkylphenyl ethers-disubstituted amine reaction products. P-17-0317 6/9/2017 9/7/2017 CBI (G) Additive for electrocoat formulas (G) Organic acid, compounds with bisphenol A-epichlorohydrin-polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether polymer-disubstituted polypropylene glycol reaction products. P-17-0322 6/20/2017 9/18/2017 CBI (G) Auxiliary drier has little drying action in itself but is very useful in combination with Active driers in vehicles that show poor tolerance for lead, calcium can replace part of the lead with a larger amount of calcium to prevent the precipitation of the lead & maintain drying efficiency. Calcium is also useful as pigment wetting & dispersing agents & help to improve hardness & gloss & reduce “silkins” when ground with drier adsorbing pigments, calcium minimizes loss of dry by being preferentially absorbed (G) Zinc naphthenate complexes. P-17-0323 6/5/2017 9/3/2017 CBI (S) Reactive monomer for use in producing polymers (G) 2-propenoic acid, branched alkyl ester. P-17-0324 6/7/2017 9/5/2017 CBI (S) Chemical intermediate destructive use (S) 2,4-hexadien-1-ol, 1-acetate, (2e,4e)-. P-17-0326 6/8/2017 9/6/2017 CBI (G) Ultraviolet curable monomer (G) Allyloxymethylacrylate. P-17-0327 6/8/2017 9/6/2017 Evonik Corporation (S) Compounding, (S) Injection molding of special applications (G) Polymer of aliphatic dicarboxylic acid and dicyclo alkane amine. P-17-0328 6/13/2017 9/11/2017 AGC Electronics America, Inc (S) Tetrahydrofuran-2-carboxylic acid is used as an additive for controlling selectivity of chemical mechanical polishing (cmp) slurry used for semiconductor wafer polishing the additive helps to selectively protect certain thin film layers from polishing while some other layers are being polished from the wafer surface during cmp process (S) Tetrahydrofuran-2-carboxylic acid. P-17-0329 6/9/2017 9/7/2017 CBI (G) Intermediate used in synthesis (G) Substituted haloaromatic trihaloalkyl-aromatic alkanone. P-17-0330 6/23/2017 9/21/2017 CBI (S) Polyurethane which is cured and used in a sprocket for water treatment (G) Hexanedioic acid, polymer with trifuntional polyol, 1,1′-methylenebis [isocyanatobenzene], and 2,2′-oxybis [ethanol]. P-17-0332 6/19/2017 9/17/2017 Archroma U.S., Inc (S) Optical brightener for use in paper applications (G) Benzenesulfonic acid, (alkenediyl)bis[[[(hydroxyalkyl)amino]-(phenylamino)-triazin-2-yl]amino]-, N-(hydroxyalkyl) derivs., salts. P-17-0333 6/26/2017 9/24/2017 Miwon North America, Inc (S) Reactive diluent for optical film coating (G) 2-propenoic acid, mixed esters with heterocyclic dimethanol and heterocyclic methanol. P-17-0336 6/27/2017 9/25/2017 CBI (S) Cathode material for lithium ion batteries (S) Aluminum cobalt lithium nickel oxide. P-17-0337 6/27/2017 9/25/2017 CBI (S) Cathode material for lithium ion batteries (S) Aluminum boron cobalt lithium nickel oxide. P-17-0338 6/27/2017 9/25/2017 CBI (S) Cathode material for lithium ion batteries (S) Aluminum boron cobalt lithium magnesium nickel oxide. P-17-0339 6/28/2017 9/26/2017 Sasol Chemicals (USA), LLC (S) Industrial/commercial surfactant (S) Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(2-butyloctyl)-omega-hydroxy-. P-17-0339 6/28/2017 9/26/2017 Sasol Chemicals (USA), LLC (S) Agricultural chemicals,
  • (S) Paints
  • (S) Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(2-butyloctyl)-omega-hydroxy-.
    P-17-0339 6/28/2017 9/26/2017 Sasol Chemicals (USA), LLC (S) Metal working fluid (S) Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(2-butyloctyl)-omega-hydroxy-. P-17-0340 6/28/2017 9/26/2017 Sasol Chemicals (USA), LLC (S) Industrial/commercial surfactant,
  • (S) Metal working fluid,
  • (S) Agricultural Chemicals,
  • (S) Paints
  • (S) Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(2-hexyldecyl)-omega-hydroxy-.
    P-17-0341 6/28/2017 9/26/2017 Sasol Chemicals (USA), LLC (S) Paints,
  • (S) Agricultural chemicals,
  • (S) Metal working fluid,
  • (S) Industrial/commercial surfactant
  • (S) Alcohols, C16-20-branched, ethoxylated.
    P-17-0342 6/28/2017 9/26/2017 Sasol Chemicals (USA), LLC (S) Agricultural chemicals,
  • (S) Paints,
  • (S) Metal working fluid,
  • (S) Industrial/commercial surfactant
  • (S) Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(2-octyldodecyl)-omega-hydroxy-.
    P-17-0343 6/28/2017 9/26/2017 CBI (G) Corrosion inhibitor in aqueous systems (G) Modified benzimidazole. P-17-0345 6/30/2017 9/28/2017 CBI (G) Resin intermediate (G) Polyurethane, methacrylate blocked.

    For the 17 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 2 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.

    Table 2—NOCs Received From June 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017 Case No. Received date Commencement date Chemical J-15-0036 6/30/2017 6/6/2017 (G) Zymomonas mobilis genetically modified. P-12-0277 6/28/2017 6/5/2017 (S) Alkanes, C20-28, chloro. P-12-0282 6/28/2017 6/5/2017 (S) Alkanes, C14-16, chloro. P-12-0283 6/28/2017 6/5/2017 (S) Tetradecane, chloro derivs. P-13-0303 6/29/2017 6/22/2017 (G) Substituted phenol formaldehyde polymer. P-13-0872 6/23/2017 5/31/2017 (G) Alkyl triazine. P-14-0311 6/15/2017 6/1/2017 (S) Benzenepropanamide, 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-, N-C16-18-alkyl derivs. P-14-0373 6/14/2017 8/4/2016 (S) Neononanoic acid, ethenyl ester, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and rel-(1r, 2r, 4r)-1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo [2.2.1]heptyl-2-yl 2 -methyl-2-propenoate. P-14-0427 6/30/2017 6/26/2017 (S) Nitrile hydratase. P-14-0683 6/30/2017 6/28/2017 (S) Tetradecane, chloro derivatives. P-14-0684 6/30/2017 6/8/2017 (S) Alkanes, C14-16, chloro. P-14-0834 6/14/2017 7/8/2016 (S) Cyclohexane, 1,1′-methylenebis[4-isocyanato-, homopolymer, 2-butoxyethanol- and polyethylene glycol mono-me ether-blocked. P-15-0099 6/14/2017 2/19/2017 (S) Phenol, 4,4′-(1-methylethylidene) bis-, polymer with 1,3-diisocyanatomethylbenzene, 1,1′-methylenebis [4-isocyanatobenzene], 2-methyloxirane and 2-methyloxirane polymer with oxirane ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1), me et ketone oxime-blocked. P-15-0141 6/20/2017 6/5/2017 (S) D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-(C16-18 and C18-unsaturated (unsatd.) acyl) derivs. P-15-0431 6/19/2017 6/2/2017 (G) C16-18 and C18-unsatd., polymer with alkyl triol and acid anhydride. P-16-0079 6/14/2017 3/13/2017 (G) Benzenedicarbonyl dichloride, polymer with 4,4′-(1-methylethylidene)bis hydroxy carbomonocycle. P-16-0273 6/26/2017 6/4/2017 (G) Alkyl heteromonocycle, polymer with heteromonocycle, carboxyalkyl alkyl ether. P-16-0274 6/26/2017 6/4/2017 (G) Alkyl heteromonocycle, polymer with heteromonocycle, carboxyalkyl alkyl ether. P-16-0534 6/21/2017 5/31/2017 (G) Alkyl alkenoic acid, polymer with alkenylcarbomonocycle telomer with substituted alkanoic acid hydroxyl alkyl substituted alkenyl substituted alkyl ester, polyalkylene glycol alkyl ether alkyl alkenoate, dialkylene glycol diheteromonocyclic ether and alkylcarbomonocyclic alkenoate, metal salt. P-16-0535 6/21/2017 5/31/2017 (G) Alkyl alkenoic acid, polymer with alkenylcarbomonocycle telomer with substituted alkanoic acid hydroxyl alkyl substituted alkenyl substituted alkyl ester, alkanediol diheteromonocyclic ether, polyalkylene glycol alkyl ether alkyl alkenoate and alkylcarbomonocyclic alkenoate, metal salt. P-16-0536 6/21/2017 5/31/2017 (G) Alkyl alkenoic acid, polymer with bis heteromonocyclic substituted alkyl carbomonocycle, alkenylcarbomonocycle telomer with substituted alkanoic acid hydroxyl alkyl substituted alkenyl substituted alkyl ester, polyalkylene glycol alkyl ether alkyl alkenoate and alkylcarbomonocyclicalkenoate, metal salt. P-16-0543 6/23/2017 5/26/2017 (G) Halogenophosphoric acid metal salt. P-17-0010 6/30/2017 6/30/2017 (G) Alkyl substituted alkenoic acid, alkyl ester, polymer with alkyl substituted alkenoate and alkenoic acid, hydroxy substituted[(oxoalkyl)oxy]alkyl ester, reaction products with alkanoic acid, dipentaerythritol and isocyanate substituted carbomonocycle, compounds with alkylamine. P-17-0218 6/15/2017 6/15/2017 (S) Bicycle[2.2.1]heptane-1-methanesulfonic acid, 7,7-dimethyl-2-oxo-, compd. with N,N-diethylethanamine (1:1). P-17-0246 6/19/2017 6/5/2017 (G) Polycarbonate polyol. Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: August 31, 2017. Pamela Myrick, Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20749 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0407; FRL-9967-08] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for July 2017 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from July 3, 2017 to July 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before October 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0407, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, IMD 7407M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8593; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR parts 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from July 3, 2017 to July 31, 2017, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

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

    Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic reports on the status of new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

    For the 49 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; The date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

    Table 1—PMNs Received From July 3, 2017 to July 31, 2017 Case No. Received date Projected notice end date Manufacturer importer Use Chemical P-17-0110 7/6/2017 10/4/2017 CBI (G) Masking photopolymer (G) Phenol formaldehyde glycidyl ether acrylate cycloalkene ester. P-17-0121 7/3/2017 10/1/2017 CBI (S) Polyurethane used in an adhesive (G) Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate terminated polyurethane resin. P-17-0149 7/20/2017 10/18/2017 CBI (G) Electronic use (G) Fluorocyanophenyl alkylbenzoate. P-17-0150 7/20/2017 10/18/2017 CBI (G) Electronic use (G) Fluorocyanophenyl alkylbenzoate. P-17-0151 7/20/2017 10/18/2017 CBI (G) Electronic use (G) Fluorocyanophenyl