Federal Register Vol. 82, No.187,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 187 (September 28, 2017)

Page Range45173-45419
FR Document

82_FR_187
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 45417 - Increasing Access to High-Quality Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) EducationPDF
82 FR 45413 - Presidential Determination on Major Drug Transit or Major Illicit Drug Producing Countries for Fiscal Year 2018PDF
82 FR 45411 - Delegation of Authority Under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability ActPDF
82 FR 45322 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science BoardPDF
82 FR 45303 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 45325 - Submission for Review: Verification of Adult Student Enrollment Status, RI 25-49PDF
82 FR 45256 - Inviting Applications for Technical Assistance and Training GrantsPDF
82 FR 45356 - Revised Notice of Land Use Change and Release of Grant Assurance Restrictions at the Sacramento International Airport (SMF), Sacramento, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 45321 - Millennium Challenge Corporation Advisory CouncilPDF
82 FR 45318 - Notice of Entering Into a Compact With the Federal Democratic Republic of NepalPDF
82 FR 45288 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 45202 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle RefrigerantPDF
82 FR 45353 - Notice of Cancellation of Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement for Replacement General Aviation Airport, Mesquite, Clark County, NevadaPDF
82 FR 45253 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle RefrigerantPDF
82 FR 45354 - RTCA PMC Program Management Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 45353 - Eighty Sixth RTCA SC-147 Plenary SessionPDF
82 FR 45355 - Fifty Second RTCA SC-224 PlenaryPDF
82 FR 45269 - Record of Decision for the KC-46 Third Main Operating Base (MOB 3) BeddownPDF
82 FR 45280 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; an Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B)PDF
82 FR 45261 - Approval of Subzone Expansion; Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc.; Sacramento, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 45261 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64-Jacksonville, Florida; Authorization of Production Activity; Hans-Mill Corporation (Household Trash Cans and Plastic Storage Totes), Jacksonville, FloridaPDF
82 FR 45260 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 144-Brunswick, Georgia; Authorization of Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Passenger Motor Vehicles); Brunswick, GeorgiaPDF
82 FR 45262 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 47-Boone County, Kentucky; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Valeo North America, Inc.; (Automotive Clutch and Compressor Assemblies); Winchester, KentuckyPDF
82 FR 45260 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 214-Lenoir County, North Carolina; Authorization of Export-Only Production Activity; Nutkao USA, Inc.; (Hazelnut Cocoa Spread); Battleboro, North CarolinaPDF
82 FR 45263 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 86-Tacoma, Washington; Authorization of Export-Only Production Activity, McFarland Cascade Holdings, Inc./Stella-Jones Corporation (Treaded Canadian Softwood Lumber, Plywood, Agriculture Posts, and Landscape Tinders); Tacoma, WashingtonPDF
82 FR 45304 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Final Disposition Report (R-84), With Supplemental Questions R-84(a), R-84(b), R-84(c), R-84(d), R-84(e), R-84(f), R-84(g), R-84(h), R-84(i), and R-84(j)PDF
82 FR 45304 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals From a Decision of a DHS OfficerPDF
82 FR 45287 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 45262 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 74-Baltimore, Maryland; Authorization of Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Passenger Motor Vehicles); Baltimore, MarylandPDF
82 FR 45260 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 50-Long Beach, California; Authorization of Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Passenger Motor Vehicles); Long Beach, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 45261 - Approval of Subzone Status; LT Autos, LLC, Ponce, Puerto RicoPDF
82 FR 45263 - Approval of Subzone Expansion; Lam Research Corporation, Fremont and Livermore, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 45263 - Approval of Subzone Status; BGM America, Inc. Marion, South CarolinaPDF
82 FR 45261 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 114-Peoria, Illinois; Authorization of Production Activity; Bell Sports, Inc., Subzone 114F (Sports Equipment), Rantoul, IllinoisPDF
82 FR 45179 - National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ProgramPDF
82 FR 45262 - Foreign-Trade Zone 123-Denver, Colorado; Application for Subzone; Lockheed Martin Corporation, Space Systems Company, Littleton, ColoradoPDF
82 FR 45263 - Foreign-Trade Zone 47-Boone County, Kentucky; Application for Subzone, Valeo North America, Inc., Winchester, KentuckyPDF
82 FR 45266 - Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2016PDF
82 FR 45296 - Fee for Using a Tropical Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2018PDF
82 FR 45291 - Fee for Using a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2018PDF
82 FR 45361 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection ActivitiesPDF
82 FR 45356 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection ActivitiesPDF
82 FR 45355 - Forty Ninth RTCA SC-206 PlenaryPDF
82 FR 45354 - Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-222 PlenaryPDF
82 FR 45302 - Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Non-Competitive Lease of Public Land in Johnson County, WYPDF
82 FR 45207 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Commercial Trip Limit Reduction for Vermilion SnapperPDF
82 FR 45293 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Canning Establishment Registration, Process Filing, and Recordkeeping for Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods in Hermetically Sealed ContainersPDF
82 FR 45283 - Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC, Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 45284 - Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC, Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 45282 - Aquenergy Systems, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 45282 - East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of FilingPDF
82 FR 45178 - Extension of Import Restrictions on Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Materials From GuatemalaPDF
82 FR 45352 - Scrap Metal Services Terminal Railroad Company (Illinois), LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-Rail Line of Scrap Metal Services, LLCPDF
82 FR 45300 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030PDF
82 FR 45281 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2017-18 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Administrative Collection (NPSAS:18-AC)PDF
82 FR 45267 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Safety Standard for Bicycle HelmetsPDF
82 FR 45298 - Request for Nominations on Public Advisory Panels of the Medical Devices Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 45182 - Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 45173 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 45322 - Advisory Committee for Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 45351 - Certification Related to the Central Government of Haiti of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017PDF
82 FR 45321 - Notice of Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 45314 - Steel Erection; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
82 FR 45317 - Powered Industrial Trucks Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
82 FR 45362 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Veterans Experience Access Survey Questions Scheduling Appointment: Survey ReportingPDF
82 FR 45362 - Agency Information Collection Activity: REPS Annual Eligibility Report (Under the Provisions of Section 156, Pub. L. 97-377)PDF
82 FR 45363 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Student Beneficiary Report-REPS (Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors)PDF
82 FR 45360 - Hazardous Materials: Emergency Waiver No. 4PDF
82 FR 45290 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Child Care and Development Fund Quality Progress ReportPDF
82 FR 45301 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 45256 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 45306 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 45316 - Hawaii State Plan for Occupational Safety and Health; Operational Status AgreementPDF
82 FR 45285 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (OMB Nos. 3064-0085 and 3064-0120)PDF
82 FR 45264 - Upcoming Secretary-Led International Trade Administration Multi-Sector Trade Mission to ChinaPDF
82 FR 45331 - Oaktree Strategic Income, LLC, et al.PDF
82 FR 45324 - Privacy Act of 1974; New Blanket Routine UsePDF
82 FR 45325 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Qualified Contingent Trades and Related Information Recording Obligations by Certain ParticipantsPDF
82 FR 45329 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Reflect Certain Changes Applicable to IQ Municipal Insured ETF, IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF, and IQ Municipal Short Duration ETFPDF
82 FR 45342 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing and Trading of Shares of Breakwave Dry Bulk Shipping ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02PDF
82 FR 45339 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe CDS Risk PolicyPDF
82 FR 45351 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Puerto RicoPDF
82 FR 45350 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the U.S. Virgin IslandsPDF
82 FR 45272 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 45349 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of TexasPDF
82 FR 45350 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the U.S. Virgin IslandsPDF
82 FR 45299 - Agency Information Collection Request. 60-Day Public Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 45349 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto RicoPDF
82 FR 45305 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals From a Decision of a DHS OfficerPDF
82 FR 45351 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto RicoPDF
82 FR 45301 - Notice of Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 45268 - Guidance Document on Hazardous Additive, Non-Polymeric Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Certain Consumer ProductsPDF
82 FR 45270 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 45350 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the U.S. Virgin IslandsPDF
82 FR 45322 - Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2PDF
82 FR 45187 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Trading ProgramsPDF
82 FR 45241 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Trading ProgramsPDF
82 FR 45191 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Enhanced Monitoring; CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 45242 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Nonattainment Plan for the Central New Hampshire SO2PDF
82 FR 45277 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 45218 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 45175 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 45351 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor Status (J-NONIMMIGRANT)PDF
82 FR 45233 - Public Approval of Tax-Exempt Private Activity BondsPDF
82 FR 45228 - Technical StandardsPDF
82 FR 45220 - Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental ReviewsPDF
82 FR 45205 - Head Start ProgramPDF
82 FR 45366 - Changes to the In-Bond ProcessPDF
82 FR 45212 - Rules of Practice for Protests and Appeals Regarding Eligibility for Inclusion in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Verification and Evaluation DatabasePDF
82 FR 45193 - Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production Risk and Technology Review ReconsiderationPDF
82 FR 45208 - Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington; Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Order No. 982PDF
82 FR 45180 - Availability of RecordsPDF

Issue

82 187 Thursday, September 28, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington: Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Order No. 982, 45208-45212 2017-19920 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45256 2017-20762
AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Records of Decisions: KC-46 Third Main Operating Base Beddown, 45269 2017-20822 Children Children and Families Administration RULES Head Start Program, 45205-45207 2017-20499 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Child Care and Development Fund Quality Progress Report, 45290-45291 2017-20765 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets, 45267-45268 2017-20779 Guidance: Hazardous Additive, Non-Polymeric Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Certain Consumer Products, 45268-45269 2017-20733 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

NOTICES Arms Sales, 45270-45280 2017-20743 2017-20719 2017-20732
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2017-18 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Administrative Collection, 45281-45282 2017-20780 Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior, 45280-45281 2017-20820 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Determinations, 45306-45314 2017-20761 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Enhanced Monitoring, 45191-45192 2017-20722 Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule Trading Programs, 45187-45191 2017-20724 Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production Risk and Technology Review Reconsideration, 45193-45202 2017-20171 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant, 45202-45205 2017-20840 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Hampshire; Nonattainment Plan for Central New Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment Area, 45242-45253 2017-20721 Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule Trading Programs, 45241-45242 2017-20723 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant, 45253-45255 2017-20838 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission RULES Availability of Records, 45180-45182 2017-19897 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan Engines, 45173-45175 2017-20776 Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines, 45175-45177 2017-20702 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines, 45218-45220 2017-20718 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Replacement General Aviation Airport, Mesquite, Clark County, NV, 45353-45354 2017-20839 Land Use Changes and Releases of Grant Assurance Restrictions: Sacramento International Airport, Sacramento, CA, 45356 2017-20851 Meetings: Eighty Sixth RTCA SC-147 Plenary Session, 45353 2017-20827 Fifty Second RTCA SC-224 Plenary, 45355-45356 2017-20826 Forty Ninth RTCA SC-206 Plenary, 45355 2017-20795 RTCA PMC Program Management Committee, 45354-45355 2017-20828 Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-222 Plenary, 45354 2017-20794 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45285-45287 2017-20759 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Aquenergy Systems, LLC, 45282-45283 2017-20787 Pelzer Hydro Co., LLC; Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC, 45283-45285 2017-20788 2017-20789 Filings: East Texas Electric Coop., Inc., 45282 2017-20786 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration RULES National Performance Management Measures: Assessing Performance of National Highway System, Freight Movement on Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 45179-45180 2017-20804 PROPOSED RULES Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews, 45220-45228 2017-20561 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration PROPOSED RULES Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews, 45220-45228 2017-20561 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 45287-45288 2017-20811 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45288-45290 2017-20846 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration PROPOSED RULES Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews, 45220-45228 2017-20561 Financial Crimes Financial Crimes Enforcement Network RULES Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions; Correction, 45182-45187 2017-20777 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Food Canning Establishment Registration, Process Filing, and Recordkeeping for Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods in Hermetically Sealed Containers, 45293-45295 2017-20791 Fee Rates: Using Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2018, 45291-45293 2017-20798 Using Tropical Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2018, 45296-45298 2017-20799 Requests for Nominations: Public Advisory Panels of Medical Devices Advisory Committee, 45298-45299 2017-20778 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Export-Only Production Activities: McFarland Cascade Holdings, Inc. / Stella-Jones Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 86, Tacoma, WA, 45263 2017-20814 Nutkao USA, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 214, Lenoir County, NC, 45260 2017-20815 Production Activities: Bell Sports, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 114, Peoria, IL, 45261 2017-20805 Hans-Mill Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 64, Jacksonville, FL, 45261 2017-20818 Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 144, Brunswick, GA, 45260 2017-20817 Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 50, Long Beach, CA, 45260-45261 2017-20809 Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 74, Baltimore, MD, 45262 2017-20810 Valeo North America, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 47, Boone County, KY, 45262 2017-20816 Subzone Applications: Lockheed Martin Corp., Space Systems Co., Foreign-Trade Zone 123, Denver, CO, 45262-45263 2017-20803 Valeo North America, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 47, Boone County, KY, 45263 2017-20802 Subzone Expansions; Approvals: Lam Research Corp., Fremont and Livermore, CA, 45263 2017-20807 Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc., Sacramento, CA, 45261 2017-20819 Subzone Status; Approvals: BGM America, Inc., Marion, SC, 45263 2017-20806 LT Autos, LLC, Ponce, PR, 45261 2017-20808 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45299-45300 2017-20738 Meetings: Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, 45300 2017-20781
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Indian Gaming Commission

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Public Approval of Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bonds, 45233-45241 2017-20661 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Steel Nails From Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 45266-45267 2017-20800 Secretary-Led Multi-Sector Trade Mission to China, 45264-45266 2017-20758 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 45303-45304 2017-20944 2017-20945 2017-20946 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Final Disposition Report, 45304-45305 2017-20813 Notice of Appeal to Board of Immigration Appeals From Decision of DHS Officer, 45304-45306 2017-20736 2017-20812 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Realty Actions: Proposed Non-Competitive Lease of Public Land in Johnson County, WY, 45302-45303 2017-20793 Millenium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Compact With Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, 45318-45321 2017-20847 Meetings: Advisory Council, 45321 2017-20849 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 45321-45322 2017-20773 National Indian National Indian Gaming Commission PROPOSED RULES Technical Standards, 45228-45233 2017-20635 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 45301-45302 2017-20763 Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee, 45301 2017-20734 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Resources of South Atlantic; Commercial Trip Limit Reduction for Vermilion Snapper, 45207 2017-20792 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Engineering, 45322 2017-20775 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 45322 2017-20973 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, 45322-45324 2017-20726 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Powered Industrial Trucks Standard, 45317-45318 2017-20770 Steel Erection, 45314-45316 2017-20771 Operational Status Agreements: Hawaii State Plan, 45316-45317 2017-20760 Occupational Safety Health Rev Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 45324-45325 2017-20755 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Verification of Adult Student Enrollment Status, 45325 2017-20854 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazardous Materials, 45356-45362 2017-20796 2017-20797 Hazardous Materials: Emergency Waiver No. 4, 45360-45361 2017-20766 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of September 8, 2017), 45409-45411 2017-21026 High-Quality Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education; Increased Access (Memorandum of September 25, 2017), 45415-45419 2017-21032 Narcotics and Drugs: Major Drug Transit or Major Illicit Drug Producing Countries (Presidential Determination No. 2017-12 of September 13, 2017), 45413-45414 2017-21028 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Requests for Applications: Technical Assistance and Training Grants, 45256-45260 2017-20852 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Oaktree Strategic Income, LLC, et al., 45331-45339 2017-20757 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 45325-45329 2017-20754 ICE Clear Europe, Ltd., 45339-45342 2017-20750 NYSE Arca, Inc., 45329-45330, 45342-45349 2017-20752 2017-20751 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Rules of Practice for Protests and Appeals Regarding Eligibility for Inclusion in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Verification and Evaluation Database, 45212-45218 2017-20384 NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Puerto Rico, 45351 2017-20746 Puerto Rico; Amendment 2, 45351 2017-20735 United States Virgin Islands; Amendment 2, 45350 2017-20744 Major Disaster Declarations: Puerto Rico, 45349-45350 2017-20737 Texas; Amendment 3, 45349 2017-20742 US Virgin Islands; Amendment 1, 45350 2017-20739 Virgin Islands, 45350-45351 2017-20731 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor Status (J-NONIMMIGRANT), 45351-45352 2017-20701 Certifications Pursuant to Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 45351 2017-20774 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Leases and Operation Exemptions: Scrap Metal Services Terminal Railroad Co. (Illinois), LLC; Rail Line of Scrap Metal Services, LLC, 45352-45353 2017-20784 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

See

Internal Revenue Service

RULES Changes to In-Bond Process, 45366-45408 2017-20495 Import Restrictions: Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Materials From Guatemala, 45178-45179 2017-20785
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Changes to In-Bond Process, 45366-45408 2017-20495 Import Restrictions: Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Materials From Guatemala, 45178-45179 2017-20785 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors Annual Eligibility Report, 45362-45363 2017-20768 Student Beneficiary Report—Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors, 45363 2017-20767 Veterans Experience Access Survey Questions Scheduling Appointment: Survey Reporting, 45362 2017-20769 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Homeland Security Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 45366-45408 2017-20495 Treasury Department, 45366-45408 2017-20495 Part III Presidential Documents, 45409-45411, 45413-45414 2017-21026 2017-21028 Part IV Presidential Documents, 45415-45419 2017-21032 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.

82 187 Thursday, September 28, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9451; Product Identifier 2016-NE-24-AD; Amendment 39-19058; AD 2017-20-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by two fan disks found with a manufacturing-caused flaw. This AD requires removing affected fan disks and replacing fan disks with a part eligible for installation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 2, 2017.

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

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet: https://myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238-7125. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9451.

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-2016-9451; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document 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:

Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Honeywell TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2017 (82 FR 12755). The NPRM was prompted by two fan disks found with a manufacturing-caused flaw. The NPRM proposed to require removing the affected fan disks, performing a one-time inspection, and replacing fan disks that fail inspection. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the fan disks, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received.

Miscellaneous Comment

We received a comment regarding Honeywell as a company that was not relevant to this AD. No further discussion is required.

Changes to This AD

Based on further review, we made the following changes to this AD.

We corrected the cost per product estimate under “On-condition costs” in the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM from $300,510 to $50,085 in this AD. The cost per product in the NPRM incorrectly estimated the cost for six engines rather than for one engine. On further review, we also redefined the work hours needed to install the new or reworked fan disk. The 8 work hours to inspect the fan disk were listed as a separate item in the NPRM but, in this final rule, we added these work hours to the estimated cost of installing the reworked or new fan disk. The overall estimated cost of this work per engine remains the same.

We corrected the product identification from “Honeywell International Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine Company; and AiResearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona)” to “Honeywell International Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by AlliedSignal Inc.).”

We removed paragraph (g)(4) of the NPRM which required inspection of the removed fan disks in accordance with paragraph 3.D.(2) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016. Although fan disks may be returned to Honeywell for inspection and rework to become eligible for installation, that is not a requirement of this AD.

We revised the definition of “parts eligible for installation” in paragraph (g) of this AD to read: “For the purposes of this AD, parts eligible for installation are: (i) Fan disks not listed in the Accomplishment Instructions, Table 9, in Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016; or (ii) fan disks listed in Table 9 that have been inspected, reworked, and marked with “T43374” adjacent to the P/N or S/N. Guidance on returning affected parts to Honeywell for inspection and rework is found in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.D., of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256.” This definition clarifies that fan disks with a P/N not affected by this AD, as well as parts that have been reworked and remarked, are eligible for installation.

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016. The SB identifies affected fan disks by serial number and describes procedures for removing, inspecting, and replacing the fan disks. This service information is available by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 61 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Remove fan disk 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $0 $680 $41,480 Install reworked or new fan disk 26 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,210 0 2,210 134,810

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary disk replacements that would be required based on the results of the required inspection. We estimate that 6 engines will need this replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replace non-serviceable disks with new fan disk 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $50,000 $50,085

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-20-01 Honeywell International Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by AlliedSignal Inc.): Amendment 39-19058; Docket No. FAA-2016-9451; Product Identifier 2016-NE-24-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 2, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines, with a fan disk, part number (P/N) 3060287-2, and a serial number (S/N) listed in Table 9 of Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016, that do not have “T43374” marked adjacent to the engine P/N or S/N.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of two fan disks found with surface rollovers in the dovetail slot area. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the fan disks, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    Remove the fan disk using the following criteria:

    (1) Remove fan disks with 9,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) or more on the effective date of this AD, within 100 cycles-in-service (CIS), or at the next engine shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Remove fan disks with between 8,000 and 8,999 CSN, inclusive, on the effective date of this AD, within 9,100 CSN or within 1,000 CIS, or at the next engine shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) Remove fan disks with fewer than 8,000 CSN, on the effective date of this AD, before exceeding 9,000 CSN, or at the next engine shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

    (4) Replace all removed fan disks with a part eligible for installation.

    (h) Definitions

    (1) For the purposes of this AD, an engine shop visit is defined as the removal of the tie-shaft nut from the engine.

    (2) For the purposes of this AD, access is defined as the removal of the fan rotor assembly from the engine.

    (3) For the purposes of this AD, parts eligible for installation are:

    (i) fan disks not listed in the Accomplishment Instructions, Table 9, in Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016; or

    (ii) fan disks listed in Table 9, in Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016, that have been inspected, reworked, and marked with “T43374” adjacent to the P/N or S/N. Guidance on returning affected parts to Honeywell for inspection and rework is found in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.D., of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Honeywell Service Bulletin TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Honeywell service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet: https://myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal.

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

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 21, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20776 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0753; Product Identifier 2017-NE-25-AD; Amendment 39-19046; AD 2017-2017-19-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 553-61, Trent 553A2-61, Trent 556-61, Trent 556A2-61, Trent 556B-61, Trent 556B2-61, Trent 560-61, and Trent 560A2-61 turbofan engines. This AD requires replacement of the low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins. This AD was prompted by LPC case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective October 13, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publications listed in this AD as of October 13, 2017.

    We must receive comments on this AD by November 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0753.

    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-2017-0753; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0753; Product Identifier 2017-NE-25-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0012, dated January 25, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    All low pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins, Part Number (P/N) FK32009, manufactured since 2012 have potentially been subjected to incorrect heat treatment. This may have reduced the integrity of the pin such that in a Fan Blade Off (FBO) event it is unable to withstand the applied loads. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of location of the A-frame following an FBO event, possibly resulting in engine separation, loss of thrust reverser unit, release of high-energy debris, or an uncontrolled fire. To address this potential unsafe condition, RR identified the affected engines that have these A-frame hollow locating pins installed and published Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ451, providing instructions for replacement of these pins. For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time replacement of the A-frame hollow locating pins P/N FK32009 on the affected engines.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0753.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    RR has issued Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. RB.211-72-AJ451, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2017. The SB describes procedures for replacement of all non-conforming A-frame locating pins. 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 the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires replacement of all non-conforming A-frame locating pins.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects no engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • A-frame pin replacement 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340.00 $450.00 $790.00 $0
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-19-16 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-19046; Docket No. FAA-2017-0753; Product Identifier 2017-NE-25-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 13, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 553-61, Trent 553A2-61, Trent 556-61, Trent 556A2-61, Trent 556B-61, Trent 556B2-61, Trent 560-61, and Trent 560A2-61 turbofan engines with an engine serial number (ESN) listed in Section 1.A., Effectivity, of RR Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ451, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2017.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the locating pins, engine separation, and loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    At the next scheduled maintenance inspection after the effective date of this AD, but no later than January 1, 2018, replace each affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin with a part eligible for installation using Section 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ451, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2017.

    (h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any engine with an affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin.

    (i) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD:

    (1) An affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin is part number (P/N) FK32009, except those with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.

    (2) A part eligible for installation is an LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 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 ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to: [email protected]

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

    (k) Related Information

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

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2017-0012, dated January 25, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0753.

    (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 the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-72-AJ451, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 13, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20702 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Part 12 [CBP Dec. 17-14] RIN 1515-AE33 Extension of Import Restrictions on Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Materials From Guatemala AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect the extension of import restrictions on certain archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological materials from Guatemala. These restrictions, which were last extended and revised by CBP Dec. 12-17, are due to expire on September 29, 2017, unless extended. The Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State (Department of State), has determined that conditions continue to warrant the imposition of import restrictions. Accordingly, the restrictions will remain in effect for an additional five years, and the CBP regulations are being amended to indicate this additional extension. These restrictions are being extended pursuant to determinations of the Department of State under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. CBP Dec. 12-17 contains the Designated List of archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological materials that describes the articles to which the restrictions apply.

    DATES:

    Effective September 29, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For legal aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0215, [email protected]. For operational aspects, William R. Scopa, Branch Chief, Partner Government Agency Branch, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of Trade, (202) 863-6554, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (hereafter, the Cultural Property Implementation Act or the Act) (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (hereinafter, the Convention), in U.S. law, the United States may enter into international agreements with other States Party to the Convention to impose import restrictions on eligible archaeological and ethnological materials under procedures and requirements prescribed by the Act. Under the Act and applicable CBP regulations (19 CFR 12.104g), the restrictions are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (19 U.S.C. 2602(b)). This period may be extended for additional periods, not to exceed five years, if it is determined that the factors justifying the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists (19 U.S.C. 2602(e); 19 CFR 12.104g(a)).

    In certain limited circumstances, the Cultural Property Implementation Act authorizes the imposition of restrictions on an emergency basis (19 U.S.C. 2603). Under the Act and applicable CBP regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(b)), emergency restrictions are effective for no more than five years from the date of the State Party's request and may be extended for three years where it is determined that the emergency condition continues to apply with respect to the covered materials (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(3)); such restrictions may also be continued pursuant to an agreement concluded within the meaning of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(4)).

    On April 15, 1991, under the authority of the Cultural Property Implementation Act, the former U.S. Customs Service published Treasury Decision (T.D.) 91-34 in the Federal Register (56 FR 15181) imposing emergency import restrictions on Pre-Columbian archaeological artifacts from the Peten Region of Guatemala and accordingly amended 19 CFR 12.104g(b) pertaining to emergency import restrictions. These restrictions were effective for a period of five years and were subsequently extended for a three-year period by publication of T.D. 94-84 in the Federal Register (59 FR 54817).

    On September 29, 1997, the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with Guatemala concerning the imposition of import restrictions on archaeological materials from the Pre-Columbian cultures of Guatemala (the 1997 Agreement). The 1997 Agreement included among the materials covered by the restrictions the archaeological materials then subject to the emergency restrictions imposed by T.D. 91-34. On October 3, 1997, the former United States Customs Service published T.D. 97-81 in the Federal Register (62 FR 51771), which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the imposition of restrictions on these materials and included a list designating the types of archaeological materials covered by the restrictions. These restrictions were to be effective through September 29, 2002. (T.D. 97-81 also removed the emergency restrictions for Guatemala from the CBP regulations.)

    The restrictions were subsequently extended, in 2002 by T.D. 02-56 (67 FR 61259); and in 2007 by Customs and Border Protection Decision (CBP Dec.) 07-79 (72 FR 54538), to September 29, 2012.

    In 2012, the Agreement was amended to include certain ecclesiastical ethnological materials of the Conquest and Colonial Periods of Guatemala, c. A.D. 1524 to 1821. On September 28, 2012, CBP published CBP Dec. 12-17 in the Federal Register (77 FR 59541), effective on September 29, 2012, amending CBP regulations to reflect the extension of import restrictions on archaeological materials and the addition of ecclesiastical ethnological materials covered by the restrictions (see 19 U.S.C. 2604, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, by regulation, to promulgate and, when appropriate, revise the list of designated archaeological and/or ethnological materials covered by an agreement between State Parties). The import restrictions are due to expire on September 29, 2017.

    On July 28, 2017, after reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State, concluding that the cultural heritage of Guatemala continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of certain archaeological materials and certain ecclesiastical ethnological materials, made the necessary statutory determinations, and decided to extend the agreement with Guatemala for an additional five-year period to September 29, 2022. Diplomatic notes have been exchanged that reflect the extension of the agreement. Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) in order to reflect the extension of the import restrictions pursuant to the agreement.

    The Designated List of Archaeological Materials and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Materials from Guatemala covered by these import restrictions is set forth in CBP Dec. 12-17. The Designated List may also be found online at https://eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/cultural-property-protection/bilateral-agreements/guatemala.

    The restrictions on the importation of these archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological materials from Guatemala are to continue in effect for an additional five years. Importation of such material continues to be restricted unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.

    Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date

    This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). In addition, CBP has determined that such notice or public procedure would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the action being taken is essential to avoid interruption of the application of the existing import restrictions (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13771

    Because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, it is not subject to either Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771.

    Signing Authority

    This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1).

    List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12

    Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise.

    Amendment to CBP Regulations

    For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is amended as set forth below:

    PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE 1. The general authority citation for part 12 and the specific authority citation for § 12.104g continue to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;

    Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;

    § 12.104g(a) [Amended]
    2. In § 12.104g(a), the table of the list of agreements imposing import restrictions on described articles of cultural property of State Parties is amended in the entry for Guatemala by adding the words “extended by CBP Dec. 17-14” after the words “CBP Dec. 12-17” in the column headed “Decision No.”.
    Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: September 25, 2017. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20785 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 490 [Docket No. FHWA-2013-0054] RIN 2125-AF54 National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final regulation; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces the effective date for specific portions of the National Performance Management measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Final Rule (PM#3).

    DATES:

    The effective date of the amendments to 23 CFR 490.105(c)(5) and (d)(1)(v), 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(H), (b)(2)(ii)(J), (b)(3)(ii)(I), and (c)(4), 490.109(d)(1)(v) and (f)(1)(v), 490.503(a)(2), 490.505 (Definition of Greenhouse gas (GHG)), 490.507(b), 490.509(f), (g) and (h), 490.511(a)(2), (c), (d), and (f), and 490.513(d) published on January 18, 2017, at 82 FR 5970, is September 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Richardson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation, Regulations, and General Law, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0761. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing

    A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, the Final Rule, and all background material may be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov using the docket numbers listed above. A copy of this document will be placed on the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http://www.ofr.gov and the Government Publishing Office's Web site at http://www.thefederalregister.org.

    Background

    On May 19, 2017, at 82 FR 22879, FHWA announced that the majority of the PM#3 Final Rule would become effective on May 20, 2017, and that the portions of the PM#3 Final Rule pertaining to the measure on the percent change in CO2 emissions from the reference year 2017, generated by on-road mobile sources on the National Highway System (the GHG) measure would be further suspended pending additional rulemaking.

    This document confirms that the following sections of the Final Rule are effective as of September 28, 2017:

    1. 23 CFR 490.105(c)(5) 2. 23 CFR 490.105(d)(1)(v) 3. 23 CFR 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(H) 4. 23 CFR 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(J) 5. 23 CFR 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(I) 6. 23 CFR 490.107(c)(4) 7. 23 CFR 490.109(d)(1)(v) 8. 23 CFR 490.109(f)(1)(v) 9. 23 CFR 490.503(a)(2) 10. 23 CFR 490.505 (Definition of Greenhouse gas (GHG)) 11. 23 CFR 490.507(b) 12. 23 CFR 490.509(f) 13. 23 CFR 490.509(g) 14. 23 CFR 490.509(h) 15. 23 CFR 490.511(a)(2) 16. 23 CFR 490.511(c) 17. 23 CFR 490.511(d) 18. 23 CFR 490.511(f) 19. 23 CFR 490.513(d).

    The FHWA recognizes that there are short timeframes to comply with the October 1, 2018 reporting deadline. However, FHWA expects that the burden to comply with the upcoming reporting deadline will be minimal, consisting mostly of preliminary target-setting activities using existing data sources.

    The FHWA has initiated additional rulemaking procedures proposing to repeal the GHG measure (RIN 2125-AF76) and anticipates publishing an NPRM in 2017 with a goal of issuing a Final Rule in Spring 2018.

    Waiver of Rulemaking

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), FHWA generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and publishes rules not less than 30 days before their effective dates. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking or delay effective dates when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)). There is good cause to waive these requirements here as unnecessary, because this rule merely ceases the suspension of the Final Rule pending additional rulemaking, as provided for in the May 19, 2017 document at 82 FR 22879, thus putting in effect the requirements of the above-referenced sections of the Final Rule as previously promulgated after notice and comment. The cessation of the suspension is therefore not significant in nature and impact, and does not impose new burdens on State departments of transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

    List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490

    Bridges, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued on: September 22, 2017. Brandye L. Hendrickson, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20804 Filed 9-25-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 1610 RIN 3046-AA90 Availability of Records AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) is issuing a final rule revising its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations in order to implement the substantive and procedural changes to the FOIA identified in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and update two district office addresses and the Office of Legal Counsel's fax number.

    DATES:

    Effective September 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie D. Garner, Assistant Legal Counsel, FOIA Programs, or Draga G. Anthony, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, at (202) 663-4640 (voice) or (202) 663-7026 (TTY). These are not toll-free telephone numbers. This final rule also is available in the following formats: Large print, Braille, audiotape, and electronic file on computer disk. Requests for this final rule in an alternative format should be made to EEOC's Publications Center at 1-800-669-3362 (voice) or 1-800-800-3302 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    On December 29, 2016, EEOC published in the Federal Register an interim final rule setting forth revisions to EEOC's FOIA regulations at 29 CFR part 1610. 81 FR 95869 (2016). The purpose of the revisions is to update the Commission's FOIA regulations so that they are consistent with current Commission practice in responding to FOIA requests as reflected in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The revisions also are intended to update two district office addresses and the Office of Legal Counsel's fax number. The interim final rule sought public comments which were due on or before January 30, 2017.

    EEOC received four comments in response to the interim final rule. Two comments were submitted by an individual, and the remaining two comments were submitted by the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of Government Information Services (hereinafter “OGIS”).

    The individual commenter suggested that EEOC reconsider the fifteen cent per page duplication fee charged for copies. This comment is outside the scope of the interim final rule, which did not propose changes to the duplication fees associated with processing FOIA requests. Therefore, the EEOC declines to change the duplication fees. The second comment asked the EEOC to remove the word “professional” in 1610.9(f)(3), which identifies the requirements of a requester seeking expedited processing. Congress strongly favors uniform FOIA regulations. The Office of Information Policy, to assist agencies in issuing uniform regulations, provided a template for agencies to utilize when revising FOIA regulations. In order to conform with the Office of Information Policy template language, the EEOC declines to remove the word “professional.”

    The Commission has considered carefully the comments from OGIS and has made some changes to the final rule in response to them. The OGIS comments concerning Sections 1610.11 and 1610.13 and EEOC's changes to the final rule are discussed in more detail below.

    Section 1610.2—Statutory Requirements

    The EEOC determined that the final two sentences of Section 1610.2(a) of the Draft Final Rule should be deleted. Those sentences read as follows: “As a matter of policy, the Commission may make discretionary disclosures of records or information exempt from disclosure under the FOIA whenever disclosure would not foreseeably harm an interest protected by the FOIA exemption. This policy does not create any right enforceable in Court.” The final rule now more closely aligns with the statutory language at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(8). The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 codified the foreseeable harm standard; therefore, release of the records is no longer a matter of agency policy. Records must be released unless there is a risk of foreseeable harm.

    Section 1610.5—Request for Records

    Section 1610.5(a)(2), of the interim final rule said that “(2)A requester who is making a request for records about himself or herself must comply with the verification of identity requirements as determined by the Commission. Requesters may not be required to verify their identity without guidance; therefore, the section will be deleted. Section 1610.5(b)(5) of the Interim Final Rule has also been deleted. That section said: “Where a request is not considered reasonably descriptive or requires the production of voluminous records, or necessitates the utilization of a considerable number of work hours to the detriment of the business of the Commission, the Commission may require the person making the request or such person's agent to confer with a Commission representative in order to attempt to verify the scope of the request and, if possible, narrow such request.” The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 does not require a requester to speak with the EEOC about narrowing a voluminous request. If the request is voluminous or time-intensive but the requested records are reasonably described, the EEOC must process the request.

    Section 1610.11—Appeals to the Legal Counsel From Initial Denials

    OGIS requested that the EEOC substitute the words “dispute resolution” for the word “mediation” in paragraph (c) Decision on appeals and paragraph (d) Engaging in dispute resolution services provided by OGIS. We have done so. This change conforms to OGIS's updated FOIA rules published on December 29, 2016.

    Section 1610.13—Maintenance of Files

    OGIS advised the EEOC that General Records Schedule 4.2 replaced General Records Schedule 14. Therefore, the EEOC has changed the General Records Schedule reference to 4.2.

    Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866

    This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 2003), section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and Executive Order 13563, 76 FR 3821 (January 1, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. The rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no new information collection requirements subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Commission certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the changes to the rule do not impose any burdens upon FOIA requesters, including those that might be small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1610

    Freedom of Information.

    For the Commission.

    Dated: August 20, 2017. Victoria A. Lipnic, Acting Chair.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the interim rule amending 29 CFR part 1610 which was published at 81 FR 95869 on December 29, 2016, is adopted as final with the following changes:

    PART 1610—AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 1. The authority citation for part 1610 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2000e-12(a), 5 U.S.C. 552 as amended by Pub. L. 93-502, Pub. L. 99-570 and Pub. L. 105-231; for § 1610.15, non-search or copy portions are issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    2. Revise § 1610.2 to read as follows:
    § 1610.2 Statutory requirements.

    (a) This subpart contains the rules that the Commission will follow in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552. These rules should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB Guidelines”). Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, are processed in accordance with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations as well as under this subpart. The Commission should administer the FOIA with a presumption of openness.

    (b) As referenced in this subpart, “component” means each separate office within the Commission that is responsible for processing FOIA requests. The rules described in this regulation that apply to the Commission also apply to its components.

    3. Revise § 1610.5 to read as follows:
    § 1610.5 Request for records.

    (a) General information. (1) To make a request for records, a requester should write directly to the Commission's FOIA office that maintains the records sought. A request will receive the quickest possible response if it is addressed to the Commission FOIA office that maintains the records sought. Information concerning the Commission's FOIA offices is listed at: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/index.cfm and any additional requirements for submitting a request to the agency are listed at paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section. The Commission's Web site contains instructions for submitting FOIA requests and other resources to assist requesters in determining where to send their requests.

    (2) Where a request for records pertains to another individual, a requester may receive greater access by submitting either a notarized authorization signed by that individual or a declaration made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 by that individual authorizing disclosure of the records to the requester, or by submitting proof that the individual is deceased (for example, a copy of a death certificate or an obituary). As an exercise of administrative discretion, the Commission can require a requester to supply additional information if necessary in order to verify that a particular individual has consented to disclosure.

    (b) Description of records sought. Requesters must describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable Commission personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. To the extent possible, requesters should include specific information that may help the Commission identify the requested records, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, subject matter of the record, case number, file designation, or reference number. Before submitting their requests, requesters may contact the Commission's District Office FOIA contact or FOIA Public Liaison to discuss the records they seek and to receive assistance in describing the records. If after receiving a request the Commission determines that it does not reasonably describe the records sought, the Commission must inform the requester what additional information is needed or why the request is otherwise insufficient. Requesters who are attempting to reformulate or modify such a request may discuss their request with the Commission's FOIA contact or FOIA Public Liaison. If a request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the agency's response to the request may be delayed.

    (1) A written request for inspection or copying of a record of the Commission may be presented in person, by mail, by fax, by email at [email protected], online at https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx, or through the Commission employee designated in § 1610.7.

    (2) A request must be clearly and prominently identified as a request for information under the “Freedom of Information Act.” If submitted by mail, or otherwise submitted under any cover, the envelope or other cover must be similarly identified.

    (3) A respondent must always provide a copy of the “Filed” stamped court complaint when requesting a copy of a charge file. The charging party must provide a copy of the “Filed” stamped court complaint when requesting a copy of the charge file if the Notice of Right to Sue has expired as of the date of the charging party's request.

    (4) Each request must contain information which reasonably describes the records sought and, when known, should contain date, title or name, author, recipient, subject matter of the record, case number, file designation, or reference number and location for the records requested in order to permit the records to be promptly located.

    (c) Format. Requests may specify the preferred form or format (including electronic formats) for the records the requester seeks. The Commission will accommodate the request if the records are readily reproducible in that form or format.

    (d) Requester information. Requesters must provide contact information, such as their phone number, email address, and/or mailing address, to assist the agency in communicating with them and providing released records.

    4. Amend § 1610.11 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 1610.11 Appeals to the legal counsel from initial denials.

    (c) Decisions on appeals. The Commission must provide its decision on an appeal in writing. A decision that upholds the Commission's determination in whole or in part must contain a statement that identifies the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemptions applied. The decision must provide the requester with notification of the statutory right to file a lawsuit and will inform the requester of the dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If the Commission's decision is remanded or modified on appeal, the Commission will notify the requester of that determination in writing. The Commission will then further process the request in accordance with that appeal determination and will respond directly to the requester.

    (d) Engaging in dispute resolution services provided by OGIS. Dispute resolution is a voluntary process. If the Commission agrees to participate in the dispute resolution services provided by OGIS, it will actively engage as a partner to the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

    5. Revise § 1610.13 to read as follows:
    § 1610.13 Maintenance of files.

    The Commission must preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to Title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. The Commission must not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.

    [FR Doc. 2017-19897 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 31 CFR Parts 1010 and 1024 [Docket No. Fincen-2014-0001] RIN 1506-AB25 Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions; Correction AGENCY:

    Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    FinCEN is making technical corrections to a final rule published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, May 11, 2016. The final rule relates to certain customer due diligence standards applicable to covered financial institutions, defined as banks, brokers or dealers in securities, mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities. As published, the final rule contains technical errors that could cause confusion if not corrected.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: These corrections are effective September 28, 2017.

    Applicability date: Covered financial institutions must comply with these rules and the rules published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2016 (81 FR 29398) by May 11, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FinCEN Resource Center at 1-800-767-2825. E-mail inquiries can be sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On May 11, 2016, FinCEN published a final rule (81 FR 29398) entitled “Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions.” The final rule amends the Bank Secrecy Act regulations to include a new requirement for covered financial institutions to identify and verify the identity of beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to certain exclusions and exemptions. The final rule also amends the anti-money laundering (AML) program requirements for all covered institutions. This document makes technical corrections to the Certification Form located in appendix A to 31 CFR 1010.230 and adds a paragraph to 31 CFR 1024.210(b) that was inadvertently omitted in the final rule published in the Federal Register with an effective date of July 11, 2016, and an applicability date of May 11, 2018.

    II. Description of the Technical Corrections A. Correction to Appendix A to § 1010.230

    This document makes technical corrections to Appendix A (Certification Form) to 31 CFR 1010.230. Appendix A inadvertently omitted the words “, Type,” after “Name” in the heading of Section II.b.1 Appendix A also included the term “foreign persons” in lieu of the term “non-U.S. persons” in several places and omitted the term “Social Security number” as described below. Because appendix A was originally printed in the Federal Register from camera-ready copy rather than from typed text, the entire Appendix A, with the corrections, must be reprinted in the Federal Register from new camera-ready copy. As revised, appendix A (Certification Form) is identical to the original version except for the following: In the first sentence in Part I under the heading “What information do I have to provide?”, the term “foreign persons” is changed to “non-U.S. persons”; and in Part II: The heading of Section II b. is changed to “b. Name, Type, and Address of Legal Entity for Which the Account is Being Opened:”; and in the headings of the last column in the Tables in Section II c and Section II d, the term “Foreign Persons” is changed to “Non-U.S. Persons” and the term “Social Security Number” is added after the term “persons”; and in footnote 1, the term “Foreign Persons” is changed to “Non-U.S. Persons” and “a Social Security Number,” is inserted after the word “provide”.

    1 See 81 FR 29398, 29455.

    B. Correction to § 1024.210

    This document also makes a technical correction in 31 CFR 1024.210 by reinserting the training element of the AML program requirements for mutual funds, which was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1)(C) and the AML program requirements for mutual funds adopted in 2002,2 the training element appeared in the proposal amending the AML program requirements for mutual funds to add a new requirement relating to customer due diligence.3 In the final rule, however, the training element was inadvertently omitted from 31 CFR 1024.210(b). The training element is being reinserted by this correction document.

    2 67 FR 21117, 21121 (April 29, 2002).

    3 See 31 CFR 1024.210(b)(4) and (5) in the proposed rule published August 4, 2014 (79 FR 45151, 45173).

    III. Administrative Procedure Act and Effective Date

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency may, for good cause, find (and incorporate the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public comment procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This correcting document reinserts language inadvertently omitted from the “Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions” final rule, specifically the training element in the AML program rule for mutual funds, and deletes a term and adds language that was inadvertently omitted from the Certification Form which accompanied the final rule. The agency has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment is unnecessary.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA, the required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except, among other things, as provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. FinCEN finds that there is good cause for shortened notice since the revisions made by this final rule are minor, non-substantive, and technical. This final rule takes effect September 28, 2017 with an applicability date of May 11, 2018.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.4 As noted previously, FinCEN has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

    4See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

    V. Executive Order 13563 and 12866

    FinCEN has determined that Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 do not apply in this final rulemaking.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Notices

    There are no collection of information requirements in this final rule.

    VII. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 Statement

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532 (Unfunded Mandates Act), requires that an agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. FinCEN has determined that no portion of this final rule will result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

    List of Subjects in 31 CFR Parts 1010 and 1024

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Brokers, Counter money laundering, Counter-terrorism, Currency, Foreign banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirement, Securities, Terrorism.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter X of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 1010—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1010 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.

    2. In § 1010.230, revise appendix A to read as follows:
    § 1010.230 Beneficial ownership requirements for legal entity customers. BILLING CODE 4810-02-P ER28SE17.004 ER28SE17.005 ER28SE17.006 ER28SE17.007
    PART 1024—RULES FOR MUTUAL FUNDS 3. The authority citation for part 1024 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.

    4. In § 1024.210: a. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(5); b. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(5)(ii), remove the words “paragraph (b)(4)(ii)” and add in their place the words “paragraph (b)(5)(ii)”; and c. Add a new paragraph (b)(4).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 1024.210 Anti-money laundering program requirements for mutual funds.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Provide ongoing training for appropriate persons; and

    Dated: September 14, 2017. Jamal El-Hindi, Deputy Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20777 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-C
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0215; FRL-9968-34-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Trading Programs AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The submitted revision requests EPA remove from the Virginia SIP regulations from the Virginia Administrative Code that established EPA-administered trading programs under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), one of which also included requirements to address nitrogen oxide (NOX) reductions required under the NOX SIP Call. The EPA-administered trading programs under CAIR were discontinued on December 31, 2014 upon the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which was promulgated by EPA to replace CAIR. CSAPR established federal implementation plans (FIPs) for 23 states, including Virginia. The SIP submittal seeks removal from the Virginia SIP of Virginia regulations that implemented the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading programs (as CSAPR has replaced CAIR). EPA is approving the SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on November 27, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 30, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0215 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 5, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted a SIP revision (Revision D16) that requests removal from its SIP of Virginia Administrative Code regulations including 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part II—NOX Annual Trading Program; Part III—NOX Ozone Season Trading Program; and Part IV—SO2 Annual Trading Program (Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880).

    I. Background

    EPA promulgated CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) to address transported emissions that significantly contributed to downwind states' nonattainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CAIR required 28 states, including Virginia, to reduce emissions of NOX and SO2, precursors to the formation of ambient ozone and PM2.5. Under CAIR, EPA established federal implementation plans (FIPs) comprised of separate cap and trade programs for annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2. States could comply with the requirements of CAIR by remaining on the FIP, which applied only to electric generating units (EGUs), or by submitting a CAIR SIP revision that included as trading sources EGUs and certain non-EGUs 1 that formerly traded in the NOX Budget Trading Program under the NOX SIP Call.2 On December 28, 2007 (72 FR 73602), EPA approved a SIP revision submitted by Virginia that allowed the Commonwealth to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR regional cap and trade programs for NOX annual, NOX ozone season, and SO2 annual emissions. Virginia's NOX ozone season trading program under CAIR included non-EGUs that were previously trading in the NOX budget trading program under the NOX SIP Call, which satisfied Virginia's obligations under the NOX SIP Call.

    1 These non-EGUs are defined in the NOX SIP Call as stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers, combustion turbines, or combined cycle systems with a maximum design heat input greater than 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr).

    2 In October 1998, EPA finalized the “Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone”—commonly called the NOX SIP Call. See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998).

    After EPA promulgated CAIR, litigation ensued. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,3 but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.4 The ruling allowed CAIR to remain in effect temporarily until a replacement rule consistent with the D.C. Circuit's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on developing a replacement rule, the CAIR program continued as planned with the NOX annual and ozone season programs beginning in 2009 and the SO2 annual program beginning in 2010.

    3North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

    4North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

    On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR to address the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule also contained provisions that would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of CSAPR compliance requirements. CSAPR was to become effective January 1, 2012; however, the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by a number of court actions.

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR prior to its implementation and ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR on an interim basis.5 On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects.

    5 Order of Dec. 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.

    Throughout the initial round of D.C. Circuit proceedings and the ensuing Supreme Court proceedings, the stay on CSAPR remained in place, and EPA continued to implement CAIR. Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in order to allow CSAPR to replace CAIR in an equitable and orderly manner while further D.C. Circuit proceedings were held to resolve remaining claims from petitioners. Additionally, EPA's motion requested to toll, by three years, all CSAPR compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the approval date of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request,6 and on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an interim final rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR as January 1, 2015 and tolled the implementation of CSAPR Phase I to 2015 and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In accordance with the interim final rule, the sunset date for CAIR was December 31, 2014, and EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.

    6 Order Document #1518738, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Issued Oct. 23, 2014).

    Starting in January 2015, the CSAPR FIP trading programs for annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2 were applicable in Virginia. Thus, since January 1, 2015, Virginia regulations implementing the CAIR annual trading programs, including the NOX ozone season trading program addressing Virginia's obligations under the NOX SIP Call, have been obsolete and moot and none of these programs contribute to emission reductions in Virginia.

    On October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504), EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and issued FIPs that updated the ozone season NOX budgets for 22 states, including Virginia. Starting in January 2017, the CSAPR Update budgets were implemented via modifications to the CSAPR NOX ozone season allowance trading program that was established under the original CSAPR.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    VADEQ submitted a SIP revision on January 5, 2017 requesting the removal of regulations from the Virginia SIP under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part II—NOX Annual Trading Program, Part III—NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, and Part IV—SO2 Annual Trading Program (Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880), which implemented the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs. These regulations have been moot since January 1, 2015, when CSAPR replaced CAIR, and have been repealed in their entirety from the Virginia Administrative Code. The amendments removing these regulations were adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on September 9, 2016 and were effective as of November 16, 2016.

    As noted previously, on January 1, 2015, the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs were replaced by the trading programs under the CSAPR FIP. Therefore, regulations in the Virginia SIP that implemented the CAIR annual trading programs have been obsolete and moot since January 1, 2015. None of the provisions in 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140 which Virginia seeks to remove from the SIP presently reduce NOX or SO2 emissions from EGUs or certain non-EGUs after December 31, 2014 as CAIR was replaced by CSAPR.

    These obsolete regulations include provisions under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part III—NOX Ozone Season Trading Program Article 1—CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program General Provisions and Article 5—CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Allocations, which addressed Virginia's obligations under the NOX SIP Call by including EGUs and certain large non-EGUs that had formerly traded under the NOX SIP Call trading program as CAIR trading sources. Unlike the CAIR trading program, CSAPR's trading program for ozone season NOX as promulgated in 2011 does not provide for non-EGUs to participate in trading. Therefore, since January 1, 2015, when CSAPR replaced CAIR and the CSAPR FIP became effective in Virginia, the Virginia SIP has not contained an effective regulation addressing Virginia's obligation under the NOX SIP Call to reduce NOX emissions from non-EGUs such as stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers, combustion turbines, or combined cycle systems with a maximum design heat input greater than 250 MMBtu/hr. The absence of an effective regulation in the Virginia SIP to reduce NOX emissions from these non-EGUs that formerly participated in the CAIR trading program resulted from the sunset of CAIR and EPA's implementation of CSAPR starting January 1, 2015. Because CSAPR did not provide for trading by non-EGUs, Virginia's SIP no longer meets the Virginia NOX SIP Call obligation with respect to these non-EGUs that formerly traded in CAIR. However, Virginia's request in its January 5, 2017 SIP seeking removal from its SIP of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part III—NOX Ozone Season Trading Program and EPA's action to approve the January 5, 2017 submittal did not create this gap in coverage under the Virginia SIP. According to Virginia, the Commonwealth is in the process of drafting a regulation to address the Commonwealth's obligations under the NOX SIP Call (including its obligation to address these non-EGUs which formerly traded in CAIR). In remedying its provisions to address the NOX SIP Call, Virginia must satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.121(f) which lists requirements such as control measures to be included in SIP revisions to meet NOX budgets assigned under the NOX SIP Call. EPA expects Virginia will submit such provisions to EPA to be included in Virginia's SIP, and EPA will review and act on any such SIP submittal from Virginia addressing the Commonwealth's NOX SIP Call obligations in a separate rulemaking.

    Since the regulations implementing the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs have been moot and non-operational since CAIR was replaced by CSAPR on January 1, 2015, removing these regulations from the Virginia SIP will not interfere with reduction of NOX or SO2 emissions in Virginia and will not interfere with Virginia's attainment of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement. In addition, as Virginia's SIP has not effectively addressed non-EGUs that formerly traded in CAIR for NOX SIP Call obligations since CAIR sunset, removing 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part III—NOX Ozone Season Trading Program from the Virginia SIP will also not interfere with attainment of NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any CAA requirement as the CAIR's sunset removed the non-EGUs from the ozone season NOX trading program. Thus, EPA finds the January 5, 2017 SIP revision approvable in accordance with section 110 of the CAA, including specifically with section 110(l) of the CAA.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the January 5, 2017 SIP revision submission from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which sought removal from the Virginia SIP of moot regulations under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140 that implemented the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs at Part II—NOX Annual Trading Program; Part III—NOX Ozone Season Trading Program; and Part IV—SO2 Annual Trading Program (Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880). EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on November 27, 2017 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 30, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

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

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by 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 today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.

    This action removing from the Virginia SIP regulations under Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140 that implemented the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 8, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia
    § 52.2420 [Amended]
    2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by: a. Removing the section entitled “Part II NOX Annual Trading Program”, including “Article 1” through “Article 9” including entries “5-140-1010” through “5-140-1880”; b. Removing the section entitled “Part III NOX Ozone Season Trading Program”, including “Article 1” through “Article 9” including entries “5-140-2010” through “5-140-2880”; and; c. Removing the section entitled “Part IV SO2 Annual Trading Program”, including “Article 1” through “Article 9” including entries “5-140-3010” through “5-140-3880”.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20724 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0411; FRL-9968-38-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Enhanced Monitoring; California AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California on November 10, 1993. This SIP revision concerns the establishment of a Photochemical Assessment Monitoring System (PAMS) network in six ozone nonattainment areas within California. The EPA is taking this action under the Clean Air Act based on the conclusion that all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements related to PAMS SIP revisions have been met.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective October 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0411. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed on the Web site, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3959, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action

    On August 2, 2017 (82 FR 35922), we proposed to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of California on November 10, 1993. Herein, we refer to our proposed action on August 2, 2017, as the “proposed rule.”

    In our proposed rule, we provided a discussion of the regulatory context leading to the SIP revision submitted by California on November 10, 1993. In short, the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), as amended in 1990, required the EPA to designate as nonattainment, and to classify as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe or Extreme, any ozone areas that were still designated nonattainment under the 1977 Act Amendments, and any other areas violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through 1989 period.1 Within California, we classified six ozone nonattainment areas as Serious, Severe, or Extreme: Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (“South Coast”), Sacramento Metro, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area (“Southeast Desert”) and Ventura County.2 Such areas were subject to many requirements, including those related to enhanced monitoring in CAA section 182(c)(1).

    1See section 107(d)(4) of the Act. See also 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991.

    2See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991.

    CAA section 182(c)(1) of the CAA required the EPA to promulgate rules for enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds to obtain more comprehensive and representative data on ozone air pollution in areas designated nonattainment and classified as Serious, Severe or Extreme. The EPA's final PAMS regulation was promulgated on February 12, 1993 (58 FR 8452). Section 182(c)(1) also required states to submit SIP revisions providing for enhanced monitoring for such areas consistent with the PAMS regulation.

    On November 10, 1993, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted to the EPA a SIP revision for PAMS networks in California (“California PAMS SIP revision”). The California PAMS SIP revision consists of PAMS commitments from five California air districts with jurisdiction within the six relevant ozone nonattainment areas: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) (for South Coast and Southeast Desert areas); Sacramento Metro AQMD (for the Sacramento Metro area); San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (for the San Diego County area); San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD (for the San Joaquin Valley area), and Ventura County APCD (for the Ventura County area), as well as CARB Executive Orders approving the commitments, and public process documentation. The California PAMS SIP revision is intended to meet the requirements of section 182(c)(1) of the Act and to comply with the PAMS regulation, codified at 40 CFR part 58, as promulgated on February 12, 1993.

    In our proposed rule, we identified the criteria we used to review the California PAMS SIP revision submittal and provided our evaluation and rationale for proposed approval. We determined that California's PAMS SIP revision meets all applicable requirements: (1) By first committing to, and then by implementing, PAMS networks as required in 40 CFR part 58; and (2) by providing the public with an opportunity to inspect the proposed network description during the public review process for the proposed SIP revision prior to forwarding the adopted version to CARB for approval and submittal to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP. As such, in our proposed rule, we proposed to approve the California PAMS SIP revision submitted by CARB on November 10, 1993, as part of the California SIP.

    Please see our proposed rule for additional background information and a more detailed evaluation of the SIP revision and explanation of our basis for approval.

    II. Public Comments

    The EPA's proposed action on August 2, 2017, provided a 30-day public comment period ending on September 1, 2017. We received no comments on our proposed action.

    III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3) and for the reasons set forth in our proposed rule and summarized above, the EPA is taking final action to approve the California PAMS SIP revision submitted on November 10, 1993, for the following six ozone nonattainment areas in California: South Coast, Sacramento Metro, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert, and Ventura County. We are taking this final action based on our conclusion that the California PAMS SIP revision meets all applicable requirements for enhanced ambient pollutant concentration monitoring under CAA section 182(c)(1) and our PAMS regulation.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 15, 2017. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(495) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan—in part.

    (c) * * *

    (495) The following plan was submitted on November 10, 1993 by the Governor's designee.

    (i) [Reserved]

    (ii) Additional material.

    (A) California Air Resources Board.

    (1) Letter and attachments from James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, November 10, 1993.

    [FR Doc. 2017-20722 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522; FRL-9968-01-OAR] RIN 2060-AT14 Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production Risk and Technology Review Reconsideration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; notification of final action on reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    This action finalizes amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories. These final amendments are in response to two petitions for reconsideration filed by industry stakeholders on the rule revisions to the NESHAP for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories that were promulgated on August 19, 2015. We are revising the compliance date by which affected sources must include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining compliance with the total fluoride emission limits for superphosphoric acid (SPA) process lines. In addition, we are revising the compliance date for the monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers. We are also clarifying one option and adding a new option, to the monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on September 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5167; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Acronyms and Abbreviations. A number of acronyms and abbreviations are used in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined:

    AMP Alternative monitoring plan CAA Clean Air Act CBI Confidential business information CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register MACT Maximum achievable control technology NAICS North American Industry Classification System NESHAP National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants OMB Office of Management and Budget PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RTR Risk and technology review SPA Superphosphoric acid TAC Total annualized cost TCI Total capital investment TF Total fluoride TFI The Fertilizer Institute tpy Tons per year UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review II. Background Information III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered A. Compliance Deadline for Air Oxidation Reactors Used in SPA Lines B. Compliance Deadlines for Revised Low-Energy Absorber Monitoring Provisions C. Monitoring Options for Low-Energy Absorbers D. Restoration of the ±20-Percent Minimum Liquid Flow Rate Variability Allowance IV. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this reconsideration action include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

    Table 1—NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action NESHAP and source
  • category
  • NAICS 1
  • code
  • Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 325312 Phosphate Fertilizer Production 1 North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this final action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this final action, please contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related information?

    The docket number for this final action regarding the NESHAP for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522.

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this document will also be available on the Internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/phosphate-fertilizer-production-plants-and-phosphoric-acid. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents on this same Web site.

    C. Judicial Review

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by November 27, 2017. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.

    II. Background Information

    On June 10, 1999 (64 FR 31358), the EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category. On August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50386), the EPA published amended rules for both source categories that took into consideration the technology review and residual risk review required by sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the CAA, respectively. Following promulgation of the August 2015 rule revisions, the EPA received two petitions for reconsideration from The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and the Phosphate Corporation of Saskatchewan, including: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.; White Springs Agricultural Chemical, Inc., DBA PCS Phosphate-White Springs; and PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P., (collectively “PCS”), requesting administrative reconsideration of amended 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and subpart BB under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).

    In response to the petitions, the EPA reconsidered and requested comment on three distinct issues:

    • Compliance deadline for air oxidation reactors used in SPA lines;

    • Compliance deadlines for low-energy absorber monitoring provisions; and

    • Monitoring options for low-energy absorbers.

    The EPA proposed a notice of reconsideration including proposed rule amendments in the Federal Register on December 9, 2016 (81 FR 89026). We received public comments from two parties. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Comments are also available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522.

    In this document, the EPA is taking final action with respect to the reconsideration and proposed amendments. Section III of this preamble summarizes the public comments received on the proposed notice of reconsideration, presents the EPA's responses to the comments, and explains our rationale for the rule revisions published here.

    We are also restoring a provision of the 1999 maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rules that was inadvertently omitted from the risk and technology review (RTR) amendments to those rules. That provision, related to compliance monitoring, allowed sources a ±20-percent variability in the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber.

    III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered

    The three reconsideration issues for which amendments are being finalized in this rulemaking are: (1) Compliance deadlines for air oxidation reactors used in SPA lines; (2) compliance deadlines for revised low-energy absorber monitoring provisions; and (3) monitoring options for low-energy absorbers. A fourth issue, which was identified after the close of the public comment period, is also being addressed in this action. This is the restoration of the ±20-percent variability allowance for the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber. Each of these issues is discussed in detail in the following sections of this preamble.

    A. Compliance Deadline for Air Oxidation Reactors Used in SPA Lines

    In the August 19, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA, the EPA revised the SPA process line definition to include oxidation reactors. The EPA received petitions requesting the compliance schedule be changed to allow more time for affected sources to include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining compliance with the total fluoride (TF) emission limits for SPA process lines. In response to the petitions, on December 9, 2016, we proposed to revise the compliance date from August 19, 2016, to August 19, 2018. We did not receive adverse comments on this change. Instead, both commenters stated that they supported this change. Therefore, in this action, the EPA is finalizing the compliance date revision as proposed. The compliance date by which affected sources must include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining compliance with the TF emission limits for SPA process lines is August 19, 2018.1

    1 Refer to finalized footnotes “c” of Table 1 and Table 2 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63.

    B. Compliance Deadlines for Revised Low-Energy Absorber Monitoring Provisions

    In the August 19, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB, the EPA changed the compliance monitoring requirement for low-energy absorbers (i.e., absorbers that are designed to operate with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less) to require monitoring of liquid-to-gas ratio in lieu of monitoring influent liquid flow and pressure drop through the absorber. The EPA received petitions requesting the compliance schedule be changed to allow more time for affected sources to comply with these monitoring requirements. In response to the petitions, on December 9, 2016, we proposed to revise the compliance dates from August 19, 2016, to August 19, 2017, to allow owners and operators additional time to obtain and certify the instruments needed to monitor liquid-to-gas ratio. However, in this action, the EPA is revising the compliance dates to no later than August 19, 2018, for existing sources as well as for those sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015. We are also clarifying that new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after August 19, 2015, must comply with the monitoring requirements for absorbers immediately upon startup.

    Both commenters said that the proposed compliance date (i.e., August 19, 2017) for monitoring liquid-to-gas ratio on low-energy absorbers only allows approximately seven months to achieve compliance from the date public comments were due (i.e., January 23, 2017). These commenters asserted that a duration of 7 months may not be sufficient to acquire, engineer, test, and install the requisite technologies. One of the commenters specified that 7 months is not enough time to complete and begin implementing gas flow monitoring plans for at least 20 of their low-energy absorbers. Additionally, the commenter asserted that for at least some of their low-energy absorbers, gas flow meters are likely not feasible due to the saturated (and sometimes supersaturated) conditions of the gas streams that these absorbers handle; therefore, the commenter contended they need more time to assess liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring options and to establish operating limits. The commenter stated that each liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring option requires complicated, time-consuming, and absorber-specific evaluations. For example, to develop regression models, new instrumentation to monitor fan suction pressure and blower amperage must be installed for some absorbers, and facilities need to make changes to their computer programs. Moreover, the commenter stated that once a regression model is developed, they need additional time to establish the liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by conducting a performance test. This commenter also maintained that for some of their low-energy absorbers they may need to use an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to comply with the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements and 7 months may not be enough time to get approval for the AMP. The commenter cited a specific example where the EPA Region is in the tenth month of reviewing one of the company's AMP requests. Additionally, one commenter suggested that the EPA revise the “existing source” definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB to extend the compliance date (for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers) to those new sources that were in operation on the date the technology review and residual risk review were proposed.

    Based on these comments, we agree that more time beyond what we proposed is needed to achieve compliance with the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers. To allow time to evaluate all monitoring options, obtain and certify instruments, establish operating limits, and, in certain cases, develop a regression model or AMP, the EPA is finalizing a compliance date that is no later than August 19, 2018.2 This extension provides a total of 3 years from promulgation (of the August 19, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB) for sources to comply with the rule, and is the maximum compliance period allowed by the CAA. We also agree with the commenter that the compliance date should apply to certain new sources. This was an error in the December 9, 2016, proposal as we did not intend for the compliance date to apply to only existing sources. Therefore, in this action, the EPA is correcting this error at footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 such that the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers applies to both existing sources and those new sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015. We are also clarifying that new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after August 19, 2015, must comply with the monitoring requirements for absorbers immediately upon startup. Instead of revising the “existing source” definition as requested by the commenter, we determined it will be clearer and more straightforward to make the corrections in these footnotes.

    2 Refer to finalized footnote b of Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63.

    Furthermore, one commenter requested that the EPA add more compliance options for low-energy absorbers in advance of the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements. The commenter asserted that footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 are too narrowly drafted because they do not allow facilities to use liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring or their current monitoring strategies, such as monitoring in accordance with an already approved AMP or an applicable monitoring provision of a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70, in advance of the compliance date. This commenter suggested edits to footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0097) to allow compliance with any one of the following: (i) The monitoring requirements in Table 3 for absorbers designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; (ii) the applicable monitoring provisions of a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 or an Alternative Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8(f); or (iii) the installation of continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) for pressure at the gas stream inlet or outlet of the absorber, and monitoring pressure drop through the absorber. We agree with the commenter that facilities should be allowed to use liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring or their current approved monitoring strategy (in lieu of monitoring pressure drop through the absorber), in advance of the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers. Therefore, for the most part, we included the commenter's edits to footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 in the final rules. However, we added language to the commenter's edits to ensure that if an owner or operator were to use a part 70 monitoring provision, it would be a federally enforceable provision. We also split the option to use a part 70 monitoring provision and the option to use an AMP such that it is one or the other. The final rule allows an owner or operator to use liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring or their current approved monitoring strategy (in lieu of monitoring pressure drop through the absorber), in advance of the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers.

    Finally, one commenter requested that the EPA include language in the final rules to authorize compliance with an AMP that is still under review by an EPA Regional office beyond the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements, provided the AMP request was submitted to the Region more than 30 days in advance of the compliance deadline. The commenter maintained that without this type of category-specific provision, owners or operators are not entitled (based on the existing provision at 40 CFR 63.8(f)(1)) to rely on AMPs in advance of the EPA's approval. The commenter stated that although 40 CFR 63.8(f)(5)(i) calls for the Agency to respond to AMP requests within 30 days of receipt, the EPA sometimes needs more than 30 days to grant or deny such requests. The commenter asserted they are unable to predict or control the response time of the EPA; therefore, they should not be required to carry the risk and uncertainty of relying on an AMP that is still under EPA review after the compliance deadline. The commenter also stated that facility-specific extensions may not be available under CAA section 112(i)(3)(B), which authorizes a 1-year extension if “necessary for the installation of controls.” The commenter contended that liquid-to-gas monitoring may require new equipment for some low-energy absorbers, but the new equipment will likely be for absorber monitoring and not control of pollutants.

    We disagree with the commenter's request to authorize compliance with AMPs that are still under the EPA review beyond the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements. As stated previously, we are revising and finalizing the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers to no later than August 19, 2018, which is 3 years from promulgation of the final rule, and is the maximum allowed under the CAA for phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizer manufacturers to comply with the rule. We believe this is an ample amount of time for any outstanding AMPs to be approved. Furthermore, the existing provision at 40 CFR 63.8(f)(1) has been in place for more than 20 years. During this time, the process for review and resolution of AMP requests has functioned satisfactorily within the established timelines. The concern raised by the commenter involves one unique case currently under consideration. We concluded that adopting a blanket exemption from the procedures of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for all owners or operators of the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories is inappropriate. This one unique case is more appropriately handled by the EPA Regional office continuing to review the technical merits of the AMP application and applying enforcement discretion to ensure equitable treatment of the company.

    C. Monitoring Options for Low-Energy Absorbers

    In response to the petitions the EPA received regarding monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers, we proposed to clarify an existing monitoring option (i.e., the blower design capacity option) and to add a new option (i.e., the regression model option) to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB. We also proposed language reminding affected entities that they can request an alternative monitoring method under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f) on a site-specific basis. Refer to the preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 89026) for more details on each of these changes.

    With exception of the items discussed in the following paragraphs, commenters stated that they supported these changes. Therefore, unless discussed below, we are finalizing the changes regarding monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers as proposed.

    Blower Design Capacity Option

    In response to petitioner requests for clarification of the regulatory language describing the blower design capacity option for determining the gas flow rate through the absorber (for use in monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio), we clarified in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking how this option can be used. Additionally, we proposed changing the term “design blower capacity” in Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to “blower design capacity” and made other minor text edits to these tables in order to use the phrase “gas flow rate through the absorber” more consistently. We also proposed footnote c for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote c for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to add certain site-specific monitoring plan requirements, clarify that the blower design capacity option is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber, and explain that the blower design capacity option can be used regardless of whether the blower is located on the influent or effluent side of the absorber. Finally, we proposed a requirement at 40 CFR 63.608(e) and 40 CFR 63.628(e) to document, in the site-specific monitoring plan, the calculations that were used to make adjustments for pressure drop if blower design capacity is used to establish the maximum possible gas flow rate through an absorber. In this action, the EPA is finalizing, with one exception, all the proposed language regarding the blower design capacity option.

    The one change to the proposed language for the blower design capacity option is our addition of language in footnote c to Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify that owners and operators must establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber determined during a performance test by the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber determined using blower design capacity. One commenter requested the EPA include the following additional language to footnote c to Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63: “The maximum design gas flow through the scrubber, or Fmax, shall be determined using the blower design capacity and system pressure drop. During performance testing, the observed liquid-to-gas ratio, L/G, will be determined. The minimum liquid flow will be established by multiplying the compliance L/G by Fmax.” We disagree that the language should be added to footnote c as drafted by the commenter because it introduces a new undefined and unnecessary term “Fmax.”

    We also disagree because much of the commenter's language is already included elsewhere in the rules,3 and while the commenter's suggested third sentence is not addressed elsewhere, it can be rewritten without the use of a new term, “Fmax.” Therefore, instead of using the commenter's suggested third sentence, we are including a new sentence in footnote c for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote c for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to read as follows: “Establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber (determined during a performance test) by the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber (determined using blower design capacity).” We consider this revised sentence as clarifying how each term in the liquid-to-gas ratio is determined and used.

    3 Existing rule language currently in the rules that the commenter suggested is found at Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63; Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63; 40 CFR 63.605(d); at 40 CFR 63.625(d); at Table 4 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and at Table 4 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63.

    Regression Model Option

    In response to the petitions the EPA received requesting other options to be considered for determining the gas flow rate through the absorber, which is used in monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio, we proposed to include an option in Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and in Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63, that allows facilities to develop and use a regression model to determine gas flow rate through an absorber in lieu of direct measurement or using blower design capacity. We also proposed a requirement in footnote a for Table 4 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote a for Table 4 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 requiring continuous monitoring of blower amperage, blower static pressure, i.e., fan suction pressure, and any other parameters used in the regression model that are not constants. Finally, to allow the flexibility to use best engineering judgment and calculations, we also proposed an annual requirement at 40 CFR 63.608(f) and 40 CFR 63.628(f) to document, in the site-specific monitoring plan, the calculations that were used to develop the regression model and to require that the site-specific monitoring plan be updated annually to maintain accuracy and reflect data used in the annual regression model verification.

    Both commenters stated that they support the use of a regression model to determine gas flow rate through an absorber, but requested one clarification to the proposed language. The commenters requested that the EPA revise footnote d for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify whether an emissions performance test is necessary when developing and verifying gas flow regression models. The commenters contended that the EPA should allow facilities to develop and verify gas flow regression models separately from the required annual emissions performance test. One commenter maintained that requiring facilities to conduct a performance test to develop a regression model would waste resources and needlessly complicate the schedule for liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring. The commenter contended that facilities would have to conduct more than one performance test in a year's time to first develop a regression model and then set operating limits for liquid-to-gas ratio. The commenters suggested edits to footnote d for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 (see docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0097 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0098) to make clear that an emissions performance test is not required to develop and verify gas flow regression models. We agree with the commenters' edits to footnote d as it was our intent to allow facilities the flexibility to develop and verify gas flow regression models (using direct measurements of gas flow rate, for example, via EPA Method 2) either separately from, or in conjunction with, the annual performance test. Therefore, in this action, the EPA is finalizing, with one change, all the proposed language regarding the regression model option. The one change we are making to the proposed language is that we are revising and clarifying footnote d for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to convey that direct measurements of gas flow rate used to develop or verify regression models may be collected during, or separately from, the annual performance testing that is required in 40 CFR 63.606(b) for subpart AA or 40 CFR 63.626(b) for subpart BB.

    D. Restoration of the ±20-Percent Minimum Liquid Flow Rate Variability Allowance

    The June 10, 1999, MACT rules (64 FR 31358) included provisions to account for the variability in absorber (i.e., scrubber) pressure drop and the variability in minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber. Specifically, as a compliance monitoring provision of the 1999 MACT rules, owners/operators are required to conduct a performance test to determine the baseline average value for both the pressure drop and for the minimum liquid flow rate of the absorber, and are then allowed to operate within a range that is within 20 percent of this rate.

    The August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50386), RTR final rule included the allowance for the ±20-percent variability in the absorber pressure drop, but did not include the allowance for the ±20-percent variability in the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber.

    Industry brought this omission to our attention after the comment period for this reconsideration rule. We subsequently reviewed the record for the August 2015 RTR final rule and could not find any record of a decision to remove the ±20-percent minimum liquid flow rate variability provision. Therefore, we have concluded that this omission was an inadvertent error in the August 2015 RTR final rule, and we are restoring that provision in these final rules. Subpart AA includes this restored provision at 40 CFR 63.605(d)(1)(ii)(A) and subpart BB includes this restored provision at 40 CFR 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(A).

    IV. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule

    This action revises compliance dates specific to oxidation reactors in the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category, and absorber monitoring in both the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories. We expect the additional compliance time for oxidation reactors to comply with the rule will have an insignificant effect on a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's overall emissions.

    Specifically, in the reconsideration proposal, the EPA discussed hydrogen fluoride emissions reductions of 0.047 tons per year (tpy) from the oxidation reactor (i.e., a reduction from 0.049 tpy to 0.002 tpy) and TF emissions reductions of 0.14 tpy from the oxidation reactor (i.e., a reduction from 0.147 tpy to 0.007 tpy). The additional 2-year compliance time for oxidation reactors to meet the emission limits in the final rule result in an additional 0.098 tons (196 pounds) of hydrogen fluoride and 0.28 tons (560 pounds) of total fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride emissions from SPA process lines, including oxidation reactors, account for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen fluoride emissions from the source category.

    The revisions related to the gas flow calculation that we are finalizing result in capital cost savings of $88,200 per facility, and capital cost savings of $1,147,200 industry-wide.4 These cost savings are due to our providing alternatives to the requirement to use a gas flow meter for monitoring gas flow at low energy absorbers. In addition to the gas flow meter, we are providing two other monitoring methods as alternative compliance options: (1) A blower design capacity model; and (2) a regression model.

    4 For the detailed calculations on these cost savings, refer to “Detailed Costs of Monitoring Gas Flow Options Worksheet June 2017.xlsx” and “Annualized Cost of Monitoring Options Worksheet.xlsx” which are available in the docket for this rule.

    Table 2—Cost Comparison of Different Options for Determining Gas Flow Rate at Low Pressure Absorbers Compliance option Capital costs
  • per facility
  • Annualized facility costs
  • (2016$)
  • 3% 7% Industry Wide
  • Capital Costs 1
  • Annualized industry wide costs
  • (2016$)
  • 3% 7%
    Blower Design Capacity Model $6,400 $800 $960 $83,700 $10,300 $12,500 Regression Model 4,200 500 600 54,300 6,700 8,100 Gas Flow Meter 92,400 15,800 18,200 1,201,500 205,900 236,100 1 Capital costs per facility are rounded values. Industry-wide capital costs are calculated by multiplying the non-rounded values for capital costs per facility by 13 (the total number of facilities in the source category). The resulting product is rounded after calculation.

    The costs described in this action are a result of only the final reconsideration notice, and show a cost savings. The costs were calculated at both a 7-percent rate and a 3-percent rate. There is a reduction in estimated annualized costs calculated at both the 7-percent rate and at the 3-percent rate as a result of all 13 affected facilities implementing a lower cost option to monitor the ratio of liquid-to-gas in low energy absorbers, as compared to the cost of that requirement in the rule promulgated in August 2015. We note that the cost savings presented here are not associated with any change in emission limit, do not result in higher hazardous air pollutant emissions, and do not have a negative effect on human health or the environment.

    Table 3—Total Potential Capital and Annualized Savings From Monitoring Alternatives for Subparts AA and BB [2016$] Total capital cost savings Total annual cost savings
  • (2016$)
  • $1,147,000 $208,000 (3% discount rate).
  • $237,000 (7% discount rate).
  • V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0361. With this action, the EPA is finalizing amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB that are mainly clarifications to existing rule language to aid in implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to allow more time for compliance. Therefore, there are no changes to the information collection requirements of the August 19, 2015, final rule, and, consequently, the information collection estimate of projected costs and hour burden from the final rules have not been revised.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action finalizes amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB that are mainly clarifications to existing rule language to aid in implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to allow more time for compliance.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action finalizes amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB that are mainly clarifications to existing rule language to aid in implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to allow more time for compliance. We expect the additional compliance time for oxidation reactors will have an insignificant effect on a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's overall emissions. Hydrogen fluoride emissions from SPA process lines, including oxidation reactors, account for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen fluoride emissions from the source category. Therefore, the amendments should not appreciably increase risk for any populations.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve new technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The Environmental Justice finding in the August 19, 2015, final rule remains relevant in this action, which finalizes amendments to these rules that are mainly clarifications to existing rule language to aid in implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to allow more time for compliance. We expect the additional compliance time for oxidation reactors will have an insignificant effect on any phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's overall emissions. Hydrogen fluoride emissions from SPA process lines, including oxidation reactors, account for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen fluoride emissions from the source category. Therefore, the amendments should not appreciably increase the risk for any populations.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: September 13, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart AA—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants 2. Section 63.605(d)(1)(ii)(A) is revised to read as follows:
    § 63.605 Operating and monitoring requirements.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) The allowable range for the daily averages of the pressure drop across an absorber and of the flow rate of the absorber liquid to each absorber in the process absorbing system, or secondary voltage for a wet electrostatic precipitator, is ±20 percent of the baseline average value determined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section. The Administrator retains the right to reduce the ±20 percent adjustment to the baseline average values of operating ranges in those instances where performance test results indicate that a source's level of emissions is near the value of an applicable emissions standard. However, the adjustment must not be reduced to less than ±10 percent under any instance.

    3. Section 63.608 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
    § 63.608 General requirements and applicability of general provisions of this part.

    (e) If you use blower design capacity to determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section calculations showing how you determined the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber based on the blower's specifications (including any adjustments you made for pressure drop).

    (f) If you use a regression model to determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section the calculations that were used to develop the regression model, including the calculations you use to convert amperage of the blower to brake horsepower. You must describe any constants included in the equations (e.g., efficiency, power factor), and describe how these constants were determined. If you want to change a constant in your calculation, then you must conduct a regression model verification to confirm the new value of the constant. In addition, the site-specific monitoring plan must be updated annually to reflect the data used in the annual regression model verification that is described in Table 3 to this subpart.

    Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63 [Amended] 4. Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63, footnote “c” is amended by removing the text “August 19, 2016,” and adding the text “August 19, 2018,” in its place. Table 2 to Subpart AA of Part 63 [Amended] 5. Table 2 to Subpart AA of Part 63, footnote “c” is amended by removing the text “August 19, 2016,” and adding the text “August 19, 2018,” in its place. 6. Table 3 to subpart AA of part 63 is amended by: a. Revising the column headings for “And you must monitor . . .” and “And . . .”; b. Revising the entry for “Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow at the inlet of the absorber”; and c. Adding footnotes “a” through “d” at the end of the table.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Table 3 to Subpart AA of Part 63—Monitoring Equipment Operating Parameters You must . . . If . . . And you must monitor . . . a And . . . a *         *         *         *         *         *         * Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow at the inlet of the absorber b Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; or
  • Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or more, and you choose to monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio, rather than only the influent liquid flow, and you want the ability to lower liquid flow with changes in gas flow
  • Liquid-to-gas ratio as determined by dividing the influent liquid flow rate by the gas flow rate through the absorber. The units of measure must be consistent with those used to calculate this ratio during the performance test You must determine the gas flow rate through the absorber by:
  • Measuring the gas flow rate at the absorber inlet or outlet;
  • Using the blower design capacity, with appropriate adjustments for pressure drop; c or
  • Using a regression model.d
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * a To monitor an operating parameter that is not specified in this table (including process-specific techniques not specified in this table to determine gas flow rate through an absorber), you must request, on a site-specific basis, an alternative monitoring method under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f). b For new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after August 19, 2015, the compliance date is immediately upon startup. For existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, if your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, then the compliance date is August 19, 2018. In the interim, for existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, with an absorber designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, you must comply with one of the following: (i) The monitoring requirements in this Table 3 for absorbers designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; (ii) the applicable monitoring provisions included in a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 to assure compliance with subpart AA; (iii) the applicable monitoring provisions of an Alternative Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to § 63.8(f); or (iv) install CPMS for pressure at the gas stream inlet and outlet of the absorber, and monitor pressure drop through the absorber. c If you select this option, then you must comply with § 63.608(e). The option to use blower design capacity is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber; and is available regardless of the location of the blower (influent or effluent), as long as the gas flow rate through the absorber can be established. Establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber (determined during a performance test) by the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber (determined using blower design capacity). d If you select this option, then you must comply with § 63.608(f). The regression model must be developed using direct measurements of gas flow rate, and design fan curves that correlate gas flow rate to static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake horsepower of the blower. You must conduct an annual regression model verification using direct measurements of gas flow rate to ensure the correlation remains accurate. Direct measurements of gas flow rate used to develop or verify regression models may be collected during, or separately from, the annual performance testing that is required in § 63.606(b).
    7. Table 4 to subpart AA of part 63 is amended by revising the entry for “Influent liquid flow rate and gas stream flow rate” and adding footnote “a” at the end of the table to read as follows: Table 4 to Subpart AA of Part 63—Operating Parameters, Operating Limits and Data Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Compliance Frequencies For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in Table 3 . . . You must establish the following operating limit . . . And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies . . . Data measurement Data
  • recording
  • Data averaging
  • period for
  • compliance
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Influent liquid flow rate and gas stream flow rate Minimum influent liquid-to-gas ratio a Continuous Every 15 minutes Daily. *         *         *         *         *         *         * a If you select the regression model option to monitor influent liquid-to-gas ratio as described in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must also continuously monitor (i.e., record every 15 minutes, and use a daily averaging period) blower amperage, blower static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure), and any other parameters used in the regression model that are not constants.
    Subpart BB—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants 8. Section 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(A) is revised to read as follows:
    § 63.625 Operating and monitoring requirements.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) The allowable range for the daily averages of the pressure drop across an absorber and of the flow rate of the absorber liquid to each absorber in the process absorbing system, or secondary voltage for a wet electrostatic precipitator, is ±20 percent of the baseline average value determined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section. The Administrator retains the right to reduce the ±20 percent adjustment to the baseline average values of operating ranges in those instances where performance test results indicate that a source's level of emissions is near the value of an applicable emissions standard. However, the adjustment must not be reduced to less than ±10 percent under any instance.

    9. Section 63.628 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
    § 63.628 General requirements and applicability of general provisions of this part.

    (e) If you use blower design capacity to determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section calculations showing how you determined the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber based on the blower's specifications (including any adjustments you made for pressure drop).

    (f) If you use a regression model to determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section the calculations that were used to develop the regression model, including the calculations you use to convert amperage of the blower to brake horsepower. You must describe any constants included in the equations (e.g., efficiency, power factor), and describe how these constants were determined. If you want to change a constant in your calculation, then you must conduct a regression model verification to confirm the new value of the constant. In addition, the site-specific monitoring plan must be updated annually to reflect the data used in the annual regression model verification that is described in Table 3 to this subpart.

    10. Table 3 to subpart BB of part 63 is amended by: a. Revising the column headings for “And you must monitor . . .” and “And . . .”; b. Revising the entry for “Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow at the inlet of the absorber”; and c. Adding footnotes “a” through “d” at the end of the table.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Table 3 to Subpart BB of Part 63—Monitoring Equipment Operating Parameters You must . . . If . . .  And you must monitor . . . a And . . . a *         *         *         *         *         *         * Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow at the inlet of the absorber b Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; or
  • Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or more, and you choose to monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio, rather than only the influent liquid flow, and you want the ability to lower liquid flow with changes in gas flow
  • Liquid-to-gas ratio as determined by dividing the influent liquid flow rate by the gas flow rate through the absorber. The units of measure must be consistent with those used to calculate this ratio during the performance test You must determine the gas flow rate through the absorber by:
  • Measuring the gas flow rate at the absorber inlet or outlet;
  • Using the blower design capacity, with appropriate adjustments for pressure drop; c or
  • Using a regression model.d
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * a To monitor an operating parameter that is not specified in this table (including process-specific techniques not specified in this table to determine gas flow rate through an absorber), you must request, on a site-specific basis, an alternative monitoring method under the provisions of § 63.8(f). b For new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after August 19, 2015, the compliance date is immediately upon startup. For existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, if your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, then the compliance date is August 19, 2018. In the interim, for existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, with an absorber designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, you must comply with one of the following: (i) The monitoring requirements in this Table 3 for absorbers designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; (ii) the applicable monitoring provisions included in a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 to assure compliance with subpart BB; (iii) the applicable monitoring provisions of an Alternative Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to § 63.8(f); or (iv) install CPMS for pressure at the gas stream inlet and outlet of the absorber, and monitor pressure drop through the absorber. c If you select this option, then you must comply with § 63.628(e). The option to use blower design capacity is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber; and is available regardless of the location of the blower (influent or effluent), as long as the gas flow rate through the absorber can be established. Establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber (determined during a performance test) by the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber (determined using blower design capacity). d If you select this option, then you must comply with § 63.628(f). The regression model must be developed using direct measurements of gas flow rate, and design fan curves that correlate gas flow rate to static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake horsepower of the blower. You must conduct an annual regression model verification using direct measurements of gas flow rate to ensure the correlation remains accurate. Direct measurements of gas flow rate used to develop or verify regression models may be collected during, or separately from, the annual performance testing that is required in § 63.626(b).
    11. Table 4 to subpart BB of part 63 is revised to read as follows: Table 4 to Subpart BB of Part 63—Operating Parameters, Operating Limits and Data Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Compliance Frequencies For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in Table 3 . . . You must establish the following operating limit during your performance test . . . And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies . . . Data measurement Data recording Data averaging
  • period for
  • compliance
  • Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers) Influent liquid flow Minimum inlet liquid flow Continuous Every 15 minutes Daily. Influent liquid flow rate and gas stream flow rate Minimum influent liquid-to-gas ratio a Continuous Every 15 minutes Daily. For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in Table 3 You must establish the following operating limit And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies . . . Data measurement Data recording Data averaging
  • period for
  • compliance.
  • Pressure drop Pressure drop range Continuous Every 15 minutes Daily. Sorbent Injection Sorbent injection rate Minimum injection rate Continuous Every 15 minutes Daily. Sorbent injection carrier gas flow rate Minimum carrier gas flow rate Continuous Every 15 minutes Daily. Fabric Filters Alarm time Maximum alarm time is not established on a site-specific basis but is specified in § 63.605(f)(9) Continuous Each date and time of alarm start and stop Maximum alarm time specified in § 63.605(f)(9). Wet Electrostatic Precipitator Secondary voltage Secondary voltage range Continuous Every 15 minutes Daily.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20171 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213; FRL-9968-68-OAR] RIN 2060-AT43 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is taking direct final action to correct an editing oversight that led to a potential conflict in a prior rulemaking as to whether or not containers holding two pounds or less of non-exempt substitute refrigerants for use in motor vehicle air conditioning that are not equipped with a self-sealing valve can be sold to persons that are not certified technicians, provided those small cans were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. This action clarifies that those small cans may continue to be sold to persons that are not certified as technicians under sections 608 or 609 of the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on December 27, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 30, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Kemme by regular mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone: (202) 566-0511; or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. This rule makes a minor change in regulatory text, which is intended to resolve a potential conflict in the current regulatory text and to ensure that the regulatory text conforms to the EPA's intention when finalizing the regulatory text at issue. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to make this revision to the regulatory text if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. In this action, EPA is not making, and is not seeking comment on, any changes to the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F other than the revision discussed in this notice. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. If no adverse comment is received by October 30, 2017, this direct final rule will be effective on December 27, 2017 without further notice and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

    II. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include entities that distribute or sell small cans of refrigerant for use in motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC). Regulated entities include, but are not limited to, manufacturers and distributors of small cans of refrigerant (NAICS codes 325120, 441310, 447110) such as automotive parts and accessories stores and industrial gas manufacturers. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization could be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to 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 part 2.

    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    IV. What action is the agency taking?

    Section 608 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) bears the title “National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program.” Under the structure of section 608, this program has three main components. First, section 608(a) requires EPA to establish standards and requirements regarding use and disposal of class I and II substances, including a comprehensive refrigerant management program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The CAA directs EPA to include regulations that reduce the use and emissions of class I and II substances to the lowest achievable level and that maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances. The second component, section 608(b), requires that the regulations issued pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements for the safe disposal of class I and class II substances. The third component, section 608(c), prohibits the knowing venting, release, or disposal of ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances or industrial process refrigeration.

    EPA first issued regulations under section 608 of the CAA on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), to establish the national refrigerant management program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances. These regulations were intended to substantially reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. EPA revised these regulations through subsequent rulemakings published on August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42950), November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912), August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40420), July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43786), March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946), January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1972), May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), and April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453). For a more detailed summary of the history of EPA's Refrigerant Management Program see the discussion in the most recent update to these regulations at 81 FR 82272, 82275 (Nov. 18, 2016).

    On November 9, 2015, EPA proposed the most recent updates to the refrigerant management regulations under section 608 of the CAA (80 FR 69458). Among other things, EPA proposed to extend the sales restriction to non-exempt substitute refrigerants with an exception for small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC. That is, the proposed revisions would have restricted the sale of non-exempt substitute refrigerants to certified technicians, with an exception for small cans (two pounds or less) of non-exempt substitute refrigerant for the servicing of MVACs 1 if the cans had a self-sealing valve. EPA requested comments on several aspects of this proposal including a scenario that would have included a sell-through provision for all small cans manufactured or imported prior to that effective date. 80 FR 69481. The proposal further stated that:

    1 In this context, containers that meet these criteria are referred to interchangeably as “small cans of MVAC refrigerant,” “small cans of refrigerant for MVAC servicing,” or simply “small cans.”

    For manufacture and import of small cans of refrigerant for MVAC servicing, EPA is proposing a compliance date of one year from publication of the final rule. EPA is also proposing to allow small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported before that date to be sold for one additional year. For example, if the rule is published on July 1, 2016, small can manufacturers would have until July 1, 2017, to transition their manufacturing lines to add self-sealing valves. Manufacturers, distributors, and auto parts stores would be able to sell all small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported prior to July 1, 2017, until July 1, 2018. EPA seeks comments on this proposed implementation timeline. [80 FR 69509]

    On November 18, 2016, EPA published a rule finalizing the proposed restriction that non-exempt substitute refrigerants may only be sold to technicians certified under sections 608 or 609 of the CAA. (81 FR 82280). In the case of refrigerant for use in MVAC, EPA finalized the exemption for the sale of certain small cans of non-ozone-depleting substitutes with a self-sealing valve to allow the do-it-yourself community to continue servicing their personal vehicles. Id. However, the agency did not finalize the sell-through provision. The preamble to the final rule states that, “EPA is requiring that small cans of non-exempt substitute refrigerant be outfitted with self-sealing valves by January 1, 2018. Based on comments, EPA is not finalizing the proposal to prohibit the sale of small cans that do not contain self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported prior to that requirement taking effect.” Id. The preamble further stated:

    With regards to small cans of MVAC refrigerant, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of automotive refrigerant supported the proposed “manufacture-by” date of one year from publication of the final rule, but commented that they oppose a sell-through date for small cans that do not have self-sealing valves. They commented that such a requirement would be inefficient, burdensome, costly, and environmentally problematic. It would require all retailers to know of the requirement and establish processes for returning unsold cans back to the manufacturer for destruction. More likely, the cans may be improperly disposed of, which would negate the environmental benefit of the new provisions. One commenter stated that a “manufacture-by” date would shift EPA's burden in ensuring compliance from a few manufacturers to thousands of retailers. Furthermore, commenters cited EPA's July 2015 SNAP rule (80 FR 42901; July 20, 2015) which listed HFC-134a as unacceptable for use as an aerosol as of a “manufacture-by” date, rather than a “sell-by” date. [81 FR 82342]

    EPA described its intention to allow the continued sale of small cans without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before the January 1, 2018, compliance date as follows:

    In response to the comments received on EPA's proposal to allow small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported before that date to be sold for one additional year, EPA is not finalizing the sell-through requirement and is finalizing only a date by which small cans must be manufactured or imported with a self-sealing valve. EPA agrees that this is the least-burdensome option and that it avoids the potential for any unintended consequences of a “sell-by” date. [81 FR 82342]

    These intentions were also expressed in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2), which was revised in the November 2016 rule to state: “Self-sealing valve specifications. This provision applies starting January 1, 2018, for all containers holding two pounds or less of non-exempt substitute refrigerant for use in an MVAC that are manufactured or imported on or after that date. (i) Each container holding two pounds or less of non-exempt substitute refrigerant for use in an MVAC must be equipped with a single self-sealing valve that automatically closes and seals when not dispensing refrigerant . . . .” However, because of an editing error, another provision, 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix), contains text that could be construed as contradicting the Agency's clearly expressed intent to allow non-technicians to purchase, and retailers to sell, small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC that were manufactured or imported before the January 1, 2018, compliance date irrespective of whether they have a self-sealing valve. The relevant text in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1) provides that beginning January 1, 2018 no person may sell or distribute any non-exempt substitute for use as a refrigerant unless it “is intended for use in an MVAC and is sold in a container designed to hold two pounds or less of refrigerant, has a unique fitting, and has a self-sealing valve.

    The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute and the Auto Care Association inquired about whether the language in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix) effectively negates the provision in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2) and the preamble discussion showing EPA's intention to allow small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, to continue to be sold without self-sealing valves. EPA is publishing this direct final rule to revise the regulatory text, so that persons in possession of small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, can be assured that they will be able to sell off their existing inventories without disruption.

    This action will eliminate burden associated with regulatory uncertainty in this area. The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute and the Auto Care Association informed EPA that the lack of clarity surrounding the status of small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before the compliance date is already creating confusion. Unless resolved, this lack of clarity could unnecessarily influence sales of automotive refrigerant during 2017. This is because retailers may not want to stock large numbers of these small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC unless they are given some assurance that they will be able to sell off any remaining inventory after January 1, 2018. There is also the concern that if clarity is not provided by January 1, 2018, retailers may feel compelled to manually pull cans without self-sealing valves from their shelves and return the cans to their supplier(s). This rule will eliminate the cost of that stranded inventory and also eliminate other non-quantified burdens associated with the removal of such cans from the market, such as the labor involved in segregating small cans with self-sealing valves from those without self-sealing valves and physically pulling those from shelves.

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0256. These changes do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulations.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action clarifies that small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians even if they are not equipped with a self-sealing valve, so long as those small cans are manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. This action clarifies that those small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

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

    This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. This action clarifies that those small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians. The documentation for this decision is contained in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213, where EPA's assessment of the underlying regulatory changes that led to this correction found no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 82 as follows:

    PART 82—PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    2. In § 82.154, revise paragraph (c)(1)(ix) to read as follows:
    § 82.154 Prohibitions.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ix) The non-exempt substitute refrigerant is intended for use in an MVAC and is sold in a container designed to hold two pounds or less of refrigerant, has a unique fitting, and, if manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2018, has a self-sealing valve that complies with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

    [FR Doc. 2017-20840 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Part 1302 RIN 0970-AC63 Head Start Program AGENCY:

    Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; delay of compliance date.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Head Start will delay the compliance date for background check procedures and the date for programs to participate in their state or local Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS). Both requirements are described in the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) final rule that was published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2016. We believe programs and states will benefit from more time to fully implement these changes.

    DATES:

    The date for programs to comply with background checks procedures described in 45 CFR 1302.90(b) and for programs to participate in QRIS described in 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2) is delayed until September 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colleen Rathgeb, Division Director of Early Childhood Policy and Budget, Office of Early Childhood Development, [email protected], (202) 401-1195 (not a toll-free call). Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Head Start program provides grants to local public and private non-profit and for-profit agencies to provide comprehensive education and child development services to economically disadvantaged children, birth to age 5, and families and to help young children develop the skills they need to be successful in school. We amended our Head Start Program Performance Standards in a final rule that published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2016.

    The Head Start Program Performance Standards define requirements grantees and delegate agencies must implement to operate high quality Head Start or Early Head Start programs and provide a structure to monitor and enforce quality standards.

    Promoting Child Safety and State Partnerships

    Child safety is a top priority in the final rule. We strengthened our criminal background check requirements at 45 CFR 1302.90(b), in the final rule, to reflect changes in the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, and to complement background check requirements in the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 2014, Public Law 113-186.

    In addition to background check requirements, we aim to strengthen partnerships between states and Head Start programs. As part of this effort, 45 CFR 1302.53(b) in the final rule requires Head Start programs to take an active role in promoting coordinated early childhood systems, including those in their state. As part of these requirements, most Head Start programs must participate in QRIS, if they meet certain conditions.

    Compliance Dates

    In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the final rule, we provided a table, Table 1: Compliance Table that lists dates by which programs must implement specific standards. We currently list September 30, 2017, as the date by which programs must comply with background check requirements at 45 CFR 1302.90(b). We had previously extended background check requirements until September 30, 2017, to align with the background check requirement deadline in the CCDBG Act through a Federal Register document, published on December 6, 2016. However, programs are required to continue to adhere to the criminal record check requirements in section 648A of Head Start Act, as amended by the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134. We list August 1, 2017, as the date programs must participate in their states' Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) pursuant to 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2).

    Background Checks Procedures in the Final Rule

    Generally, 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(1) requires that before a person is hired, programs must conduct a sex offender registry check and obtain either a state or tribal criminal history records, including fingerprint checks, or a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history records, including fingerprint checks.

    In 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(2), (4), and (5), we afford programs 90 days to obtain whichever check they could not obtain before the person was hired, as well as child abuse and neglect state registry check, if available. We require programs to have systems in place that ensure these newly hired employees do not have unsupervised access to children until their background process is complete. A complete background check consists of a sex offender registry check, state or tribal history records, including fingerprint check and FBI criminal history records, including fingerprint check, as well as a child abuse and neglect state registry check, if available. We also require programs to conduct complete background checks for each employee at least once every five years.

    We believe programs will need more time to implement systems to complete the backgrounds checks process listed at 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(2), (4), and (5) in our final rule. Also, we recognize most states will have systems that can accommodate our programs' background checks requests by September 30, 2018. Congress requires states that receive CCDBG funds to implement systems for comprehensive background checks for all child care teachers and staff. These states must have requirements, as well as policies and procedures to enforce and conduct criminal background checks for existing and prospective child care providers, by September 30, 2017, but Congress gave states the authority to request extensions until September 30, 2018, and several states have done so. Since these systems enable Head Start programs to meet the HSPPS requirements in 45 CFR 1302.90(b), we can minimize burden on Head Start programs if we extend the compliance date for 45 CFR 1302.90(b) to September 30, 2018. Until September 30, 2018, the criminal record check requirements from section 648A of the Head Start Act continue to remain in place.

    QRIS Requirement in the Final Rule

    QRIS is a systemic approach to assess, improve, and communicate the level of quality in early and school-age care and education programs. QRIS award quality ratings to programs that meet a set of defined program standards. Since the 1990s, many states have developed a QRIS.

    The requirements at 45 CFR 1302.53(b) require Head Start programs to take an active role in promoting coordinated early childhood systems to maximize access to services, reduce system duplication, foster informed quality improvement, and ensure Head Start programs are part of larger early childhood systems within their states. These requirements went into effect on November 7, 2016. To further Head Start's role in state systems of quality improvement, the HSPPS requires programs to participate in QRIS, if they meet certain conditions described at 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2).

    We understood from the public comment process and from subsequent discussions with Head Start grantees and state organizations that there are concerns about the time and resources needed by both the states and grantees to ensure Head Start grantees are able to participate in their QRIS. We understand programs have taken steps to participate in QRIS and that many states are assessing their QRIS with new Head Start QRIS participation policies, but additional time is needed to align these systems. We want to minimize any unintentional burden on states that choose to adapt their systems to incorporate Head Start participation, as well as alleviate programs' concerns about meeting the current compliance date for participation in QRIS.

    Given the variation in the state/local QRIS landscape and the applicability of the conditions in the regulation, the original compliance date for the requirement in the HSPPS at 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2) was August 1, 2017 in the previously mentioned compliance table. Through this document, we are delaying the date by which programs must implement the specific requirement for QRIS participation until September 30, 2018. The broader requirement for Head Start programs to take an active role in promoting coordinated early childhood systems continues to be in effect.

    Conclusion

    We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

    We find good cause to waive public comment under section 553(b) of the APA because it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to provide for public comment in this instance. The delayed compliance date poses no harm or burden to programs or the public. A period for public comment would have only extended programs' concerns about complying with these requirements by the compliance date. Programs may voluntarily come into compliance at an earlier date if they have the processes already in place. Programs that do not have processes already in place, have until September 30, 2018, to comply with the requirements on background checks at 45 CFR 1302.90(b) and the requirement to participate in their states' QRIS at 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2).

    Dated: September 6, 2017. Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Approved: September 6, 2017. Thomas E. Price, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20499 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 130312235-3658-02] RIN 0648-XF683 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Commercial Trip Limit Reduction for Vermilion Snapper AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight. This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, October 2, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into two 6-month time periods, January through June, and July through December. For the July 1 through December 31, 2017, fishing season, the commercial quota is 388,703 lb (176,313 kg), gutted weight, 431,460 lb (195,707 kg), round weight (50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(ii)(D)). As specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(iii), any unused portion of the commercial quota from the January through June 2017 fishing season will be added to the commercial quota for the July through December 2017 fishing season. Accordingly, NMFS determined that 20,379 lb (9,407 kg), round weight, of the commercial quota was not harvested in the January through June 2017 fishing season, and NMFS added that to the July through December commercial quota.

    Under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii), NMFS is required to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper from 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight, 1,110 lb (503 kg), round weight, to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight, when 75 percent of the fishing season commercial quota is reached or projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. Based on current information, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the commercial quota for the July through December 2017 fishing season for vermilion snapper (including the January through June unused quota) was reached by September 19, 2017. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight, in or from the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, on October 2, 2017. This reduced commercial trip limit will remain in effect until the start of the next commercial fishing season on January 1, 2018, or until the commercial quota is reached and the commercial sector closes, whichever occurs first.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic vermilion snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit reduction constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule establishing the trip limit and trip limit reduction has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest, because any delay in reducing the commercial trip limit could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the vermilion snapper resource, since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and increase the probability that the commercial sector could exceed its quota.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20792 Filed 9-25-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 187 Thursday, September 28, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 982 [Doc. No. AO-SC-16-0136; AMS-SC-16-0074; SC16-982-1] Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington; Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Order No. 982 AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule and referendum order.

    SUMMARY:

    This decision proposes amendments to Marketing Order No. 982 (order), which regulates the handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington, and provides growers with the opportunity to vote in a referendum to determine if they favor the changes. Two amendments are proposed by the Hazelnut Marketing Board (Board), which is responsible for local administration of the order. The proposed amendments would add both the authority to regulate quality for the purpose of pathogen reduction and the authority to establish different regulations for different markets. In addition, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposed to make any such changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendment that may result from the public hearing. The proposals would aid in pathogen reduction and the industry's ability to meet the needs of different market destinations.

    DATES:

    The referendum will be conducted from October 16, 2017, through November 3, 2017. The representative period for the purpose of the referendum is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, Post Office Box 952, Moab, UT 84532; Telephone: (202) 557-4783, Fax: (435) 259-1502, or Julie Santoboni, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing issued on September 27, 2016, and published in the September 30, 2016, issue of the Federal Register (81 FR 67217) and a Recommended Decision issued on June 5, 2017, and published in the June 12, 2017, issue of the Federal Register (82 FR 26859).

    This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See 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).

    Notice of this rulemaking action was provided to tribal governments through the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of Tribal Relations.

    Preliminary Statement

    The proposed amendments are based on the record of a public hearing held on October 18, 2016, in Wilsonville, Oregon. The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900). Notice of this hearing was published in the Federal Register September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67217. The notice of hearing contained two proposals submitted by the Board and one submitted by USDA.

    The amendments in this decision would:

    (1) Add authority to regulate quality for the purpose of pathogen reduction;

    (2) Add authority to establish different outgoing quality regulations for different markets; and

    (3) Make any such changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendment that may be adopted, or to correct minor inconsistencies and typographical errors.

    USDA is recommending one clarifying change to the language in the proposed new paragraph 982.45(c), which would add authority to regulate quality. USDA has determined that the language as presented in the Notice of Hearing was redundant and, therefore, confusing. USDA has revised the proposed language in the new paragraph § 982.45 (c) so that its intent is more clearly stated. This new language is included in the proposed regulatory text of this decision.

    Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record thereof, the Administrator of AMS on June 5, 2017, filed with the Hearing Clerk, USDA, a Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions thereto by July 12, 2017. No exceptions were filed.

    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

    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 unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and amendments thereto are unique in that they are normally brought about through group action of essentially small entities for their own benefit.

    Hazelnut Industry Background and Overview

    According to the hearing transcript, there are currently over 800 hazelnut growers in the production area. According to National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data presented at the hearing, 2015 grower receipts averaged $2,800 per ton. With a total 2015 production of 31,000 tons, the farm gate value for hazelnuts in that year totaled $86.8 million ($2,800 per ton multiplied by 31,000 tons). Taking the total value of production for hazelnuts and dividing it by the total number of hazelnut growers provides a return per grower of $108,500. A small grower as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) is one that grosses less than $750,000 annually. Therefore, a majority of hazelnut growers are considered small entities under the SBA standards. Record evidence indicates that approximately 98 percent of hazelnut growers are small businesses.

    According to the industry, there are 17 hazelnut handlers, four of which handle 80 percent of the crop. While market prices for hazelnuts were not included among the data presented at the hearing, an estimation of handler receipts can be calculated using the 2015 grower receipt value of $86.8 million. Multiplying $86.8 million by 80 percent ($86.8 million × 80 percent = $69.4 million) and dividing by four indicates that the largest hazelnut handlers received an estimated $17.3 million each. Dividing the remaining 20 percent of $86.8 million, or $17.4 million, by the remaining 13 handlers, indicates average receipts of $1.3 million each. A small agricultural service firm is defined by the SBA as one that grosses less than $7,500,000. Based on the above calculations, a majority of hazelnut handlers are considered small entities under SBA's standards.

    The production area regulated under the order covers Oregon and Washington. According to the record, Eastern Filbert Blight has heavily impacted hazelnut production in Washington. One witness stated that there currently is no commercial production in that state. As a result, production data entered into the record pertains almost exclusively to Oregon.

    NASS data indicates bearing acres of hazelnuts reached a fifteen-year high during the 2013-2014 crop year at 30,000 acres. Acreage has remained steady, at 30,000 bearing acres for the 2015-2016 crop year. By dividing 30,000 acres by 800 growers, NASS data indicate there are approximately 37.5 acres per grower. Industry testimony estimates that due to new plantings, there are potentially 60,000 bearing acres of hazelnuts, or an estimated 75 bearing acres per hazelnut grower.

    During the hearing held October 18, 2016, interested parties were invited to present evidence on the probable regulatory impact of the proposed amendments to the order on small businesses. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that none of the proposed amendments would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small agricultural growers or firms.

    Material Issue Number 1—Adding Authority To Regulate Quality

    The proposal described in Material Issue 1 would amend § 982.45 to authorize the Board to establish minimum quality requirements and § 982.46 to allow for certification and inspection to enforce quality regulations.

    Presently, the Board is charged with assuring hazelnuts meet grade and size standards. The Board also has the authority to employ volume control. If finalized, this proposal would authorize the Board to propose quality regulations that require a treatment to reduce pathogen load prior to shipping hazelnuts. Witnesses supported this proposal and stated that treatment regulation would not significantly impact the majority of handlers since most handlers already treat product prior to shipment. Witness testimony indicated that the proposed amendment would lower the likelihood of a product recall incident and the associated negative economic impacts. Witnesses noted that the proposed amendment would give the Board flexibility to ensure consumer confidence in the quality of hazelnuts.

    It is determined that the additional costs incurred to regulate quality would be greatly outweighed by the increased flexibility for the industry to respond to changing quality regulation and food safety. There is expected to be no financial impact on growers. Mandatory treatment requirements should not cause dramatic increases in handler operating costs, as most already voluntarily treat hazelnuts. Handlers bear the direct cost associated with installing and operating treatment equipment or contract out the treatment of product to a third party.

    According to the industry, most domestic hazelnut product is shipped to California for treatment with propylene oxide. The cost to ship and treat product is estimated to be 10 cents per pound or less. Using 2014-2015 shipment data, at 10 cents per pound, the cost to ship and treat the 6.5 million pounds of Oregon hazelnuts shipped to the domestic market is not expected to exceed $650,000. Shipments to foreign markets typically do not require treatment and therefore have no associated treatment costs. Large handlers who wish to install treatment equipment may face costs ranging from $100,000 to $5,000,000 depending on the treatment system.

    One witness noted that mandatory treatment would benefit the industry by addressing the free-rider situation in which handlers who do not treat the product benefit from consumer confidence while incurring additional risks. Handlers that do treat product absorb all costs of treatment while building the reputation of the industry.

    The record shows that the proposal to add authority to establish different outgoing quality requirements for different markets would, in itself, have no economic impact on growers or handlers of any size. Regulations implemented under that authority could impose additional costs on handlers required to comply with them. However, witnesses testified that establishing mandatory regulations for different markets could increase the industry's credibility and reduce the risk that shipments of substandard product could jeopardize the entire industry's reputation. Record evidence shows that any additional costs are likely to be offset by the benefits of complying with those requirements.

    For the reasons described above, it is determined that the costs attributed to the above-proposed changes are minimal; therefore, the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Material Issue Number 2—Adding Authority for Different Market Regulations

    The proposal described in Material Issue 2 would allow for the establishment of different outgoing quality regulations for different markets.

    Witnesses testified that allowing different regulations for different markets would likely lower the costs to handlers and prevent multiple treatments of hazelnuts while preserving hazelnut quality.

    Certain buyers of hazelnuts do not require prior treatment and perform their own kill-step processes such as roasting, baking or pasteurization. A witness stated that two of the largest buyers of hazelnuts, Diamond of California and Kraft Foods, Inc. choose to treat product after arrival.

    Shipments to foreign markets often do not require treatment and are treated after exportation. Testimony indicated that during the 2014-2015 season, of the 9.5 million pounds of kernel hazelnuts shipped to Canada, almost all were further treated by the customers. In conjunction with the proposed quality authority discussed in Material Issue 1, specific regulation could be developed to exempt exported product, subject to further pathogen-reduction treatment in the country of purchase, from mandatory treatment. In Canada, the purchaser, not the handler, is responsible for providing pathogen reduction treatment. Requiring handlers to treat hazelnuts before export would be duplicative in cost and treatment. At 10 cents per pound, it is estimated that on sales to Canada alone, handler savings could reach as much as $950,000 (9.5 million pounds of shipments multiplied by 10 cents per pound), if exempted from the mandatory treatment requirement. Hazelnuts shipped to China are typically processed after arrival and also do not necessitate treatment by handlers in the United States.

    China is a major export market for inshell hazelnuts. According to the hearing transcript, from 2011-2015, 54 percent of inshell hazelnuts were exported. The total value of inshell exports was approximately $41,340,780, if 54 percent is multiplied by the $76,557,000 total hazelnut exports. In 2015-2016 China received 90 percent of U.S. inshell hazelnut exports. The 2015-2016 value of U.S. hazelnut exports to China is estimated to be approximately $37,206,702, or 90 percent of the value of all U.S. inshell exports. Oregon hazelnuts compete primarily with Turkish (kernel) and Chilean (inshell) hazelnuts. Testimony indicates that multiple treatments of hazelnuts would likely affect the quality of hazelnuts. Allowing for different regulations for different markets would help Oregon and Washington hazelnuts compete in foreign markets and maintain U.S. market share. It is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of product is already being treated, and thus, the cost has already been incorporated into the price purchasers pay.

    One witness noted that shipments to the European Union may require different regulations since this market prefers certain treatment processes.

    The record shows that the proposal to add authority to establish different outgoing quality requirements for different markets would, in itself, have no economic impact on growers or handlers of any size. Regulations implemented under that authority could potentially impose additional costs on handlers required to comply with them.

    For the reasons described above, it is determined that the benefits of adding authority for different market regulations to the order would outweigh the potential costs of future implementation.

    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule. These amendments are intended to improve the operation and administration of the order and to assist in the marketing of hazelnuts.

    Board meetings regarding these proposals, as well as the hearing date and location, were widely publicized throughout the Oregon and Washington hazelnut industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and the hearing to participate in Board deliberations on all issues. All Board meetings and the hearing were public forums, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on these issues. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory impacts of this action on small businesses.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Current information collection requirements for part 982 are approved by OMB, under OMB Number 0581-0189—“Generic OMB Fruit Crops.” No changes are anticipated in these requirements as a result of this proceeding. Should any such changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

    As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

    AMS is committed to complying with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

    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.

    Civil Justice Reform

    The amendments to the order proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed amendments would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this proposal.

    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.

    Findings and Conclusions

    The findings and conclusions, rulings, and general findings and determinations included in the Recommended Decision set forth in the June 12, 2017, issue of the Federal Register (82 FR 26859) are hereby approved and adopted.

    Marketing Order

    Annexed hereto and made a part hereof is the document entitled “Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington.” This document has been decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing findings and conclusions.

    It is hereby ordered, that this entire decision be published in the Federal Register.

    Referendum Order

    It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted in accordance with the procedure for the conduct of referenda (7 CFR 900.400-407) to determine whether the annexed order amending the order regulating the handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington is approved or favored by growers, as defined under the terms of the order, who during the representative period were engaged in the production of hazelnuts in the production area.

    The representative period for the conduct of such referendum is hereby determined to be July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.

    The agents of the Secretary to conduct such referendum are hereby designated to be Dale Novotny and Gary Olson, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, Suite 305, Portland, Oregon 97204; telephone: (503) 326-2724; or fax: (503) 326-7440 or Email: [email protected] or [email protected], respectively.

    Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington 1

    1 This order shall not become effective unless and until the requirements of § 900.14 of the rules of practice and procedure governing proceedings to formulate marketing agreements and marketing orders have been met.

    Findings and Determinations

    The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations that were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.

    (a) Findings and Determinations Upon the Basis of the Hearing Record

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), a public hearing was held upon proposed further amendment of Marketing Order No. 982, regulating the handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington.

    Upon the basis of the record, it is found that:

    (1) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

    (2) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of hazelnuts grown in the production area in the same manner as, and are applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order upon which a hearing has been held;

    (3) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in its application to the smallest regional production area that is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

    (4) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington; and

    (5) All handling of hazelnuts grown in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

    Order Relative to Handling

    It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date hereof, all handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the said order as hereby proposed to be amended as follows:

    The provisions of the proposed marketing order amending the order contained in the Recommended Decision issued on June 5, 2017, and published in the June 12, 2017, issue of the Federal Register (82 FR 26859) will be and are the terms and provisions of this order amending the order and are set forth in full herein.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 982

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

    Recommended Further Amendment of the Marketing Order

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 982—HAZELNUTS GROWN IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 982 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Designate the subpart labeled “Order Regulating Handling” as subpart A. 3. Revise § 982.12 to read as follows:
    § 982.12 Merchantable hazelnuts.

    Merchantable hazelnuts means inshell hazelnuts that meet the grade, size, and quality regulations in effect pursuant to § 982.45 and are likely to be available for handling as inshell hazelnuts.

    4. Amend § 982.40 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 982.40 Marketing policy and volume regulation.

    (d) Grade, size, and quality regulations. Prior to September 20, the Board may consider grade, size, and quality regulations in effect and may recommend modifications thereof to the Secretary.

    5. Revise the undesignated center heading prior to § 982.45 to read as follows: Grade, Size, and Quality Regulation 6. In § 982.45: a. Revise the section heading; and b. Add new paragraphs (c) and (d).

    The revisions to read as follows:

    § 982.45 Establishment of grade, size, and quality regulations.

    (c) Quality regulations. For any marketing year, the Board may establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such minimum quality and inspection requirements applicable to hazelnuts to facilitate the reduction of pathogens as will contribute to orderly marketing or will be in the public interest. In such marketing year, no handler shall handle hazelnuts unless they meet applicable minimum quality and inspection requirements as evidenced by certification acceptable to the Board.

    (d) Different regulations for different markets. The Board may, with the approval of the Secretary, recommend different outgoing quality requirements for different markets. The Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish rules and regulations necessary and incidental to the administration of this provision.

    7. Amend § 982.46 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 982.46 Inspection and certification.

    (d) Whenever quality regulations are in effect pursuant to § 982.45, each handler shall certify that all product to be handled or credited in satisfaction of a restricted obligation meets the quality regulations as prescribed.

    Subpart B—Grade and Size Requirements 8. Designate the subpart labeled “Grade and Size Regulation” as subpart B and revise the heading as shown above. Subpart C—[Amended] 9. Designate the subpart labeled “Free and Restricted Percentages” as subpart C. Subpart D—[Amended] 10. Designate the subpart labeled “Assessment Rates” as subpart D. Subpart E—Administrative Requirements 11. Designate the subpart labeled “Administrative Rules and Regulations” as subpart E and revise the heading as shown above. Dated: September 14, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-19920 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 134 RIN 3245-AG87 Rules of Practice for Protests and Appeals Regarding Eligibility for Inclusion in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Verification and Evaluation Database AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is proposing to amend the rules of practice of its Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) to implement procedures for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) database, and procedures for appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database. These amendments would be in accordance with Sections 1832 and 1833 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA 2017).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG87 by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail, Hand Delivery/Courier: Delorice Price Ford, Assistant Administrator for Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    SBA will post all comments on www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at www.regulations.gov, please submit the information to Daniel K. George, Attorney Advisor, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, or send an email to [email protected] Highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as confidential. SBA will review the information and make the final determination whether it will publish the information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel K. George, Attorney Advisor, at (202) 401-8200 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Sections 1832 and 1833 of the NDAA 2017 authorized the SBA's OHA to determine protests and appeals related to inclusion in the CVE database. In order to implement these sections, this proposed rule would amend OHA's jurisdiction at subparts A and B of 13 CFR part 134 to include protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database. In addition, the proposed rule would create a new subpart J in 13 CFR part 134 to set out detailed rules of practice for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the VA CVE database, and a new subpart K to set out detailed rules of practice for appeals of denials and cancellations of verification for inclusion in the VA's CVE database.

    Section-by-Section Analysis A. 13 CFR Part 134 Subparts A and B

    SBA proposes to amend § 134.102, the rules for establishing OHA jurisdiction, to add protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database, as two new types of proceedings over which OHA would have jurisdiction. New § 134.102(u) would allow for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database. New § 134.102(v) would allow for appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database.

    SBA also proposes to amend § 134.201(b) by adding new paragraphs (8) and (9) to include protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database. As a result of these new paragraphs, existing § 134.201(b)(8) would be redesignated as § 134.201(b)(10).

    B. 13 CFR Part 134, Subpart J

    SBA proposes to add new subpart J, consisting of §§ 134.1001-1013, in order to conform OHA's rules of practice for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database (CVE Protests). As a result, the new rules of practice for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database would mirror SBA's existing rules for protests of service-disabled veteran owned small businesses, found in 13 CFR part 125 subpart D.

    Proposed § 134.1001(b) states that the provisions of subparts A and B also apply to protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database. Section 134.1001(c) adds that the protest procedures are separate from those governing Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern (SDVO SBC) protests for non-VA procurements, which are subject to 13 CFR part 125. Section 134.1001(d) states that protests of a concern's eligibility for a non-VA procurement as an SDVO SBC are governed by 13 CFR part 125. In addition, § 134.1001(e) specifies that appeals that relate to a determination made by the SBA's Director, Office of Government Contracting (D/GC) are governed by subpart E of 13 CFR part 125.

    As proposed in § 134.1002, the Secretary of the VA, or his/her designee, as well as the Contracting Officer (CO) or an offeror in a VA procurement awarded to a small business may file a CVE Protest. A protesting offeror need not be the offeror next in line for award.

    Section 134.1003 establishes the grounds for filing a CVE Protest as status, and ownership and control. Paragraph (c) requires the Judge to determine a protested concern's eligibility for inclusion in the CVE as of the date the protest was filed.

    Section 134.1004(a) establishes the deadlines for filing a CVE Protest, which is at any time for the Secretary of the VA and any time during the life of a contract for the CO. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) instructs that an offeror must file its protest within five days of being notified of the identity of the apparent awardee. Paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) indicate the rule for counting days and that any untimely protest will be dismissed. Paragraph (b) describes the methods for filing a CVE Protest by interested parties. A CVE Protest brought by an offeror is filed with the CO, who then forwards the protest to OHA.

    Section 134.1005 specifies the contents that every CVE Protest must have. Paragraph (b) would require a protective order be requested within five days of a protest being filed.

    Section 134.1006 would apply the servicing and filing requirements found at § 134.204.

    Section 134.1007 would establish the process of CVE Protests as follows: Paragraph (a) would require OHA to issue a notice and order if the protest is found to be timely, specific, and based on protectable allegations; paragraph (b) would require dismissal of a protest if the Judge determines the protest to be premature, untimely, nonspecific, or based on non-protestable allegations; paragraph (c) would require the Director of the CVE (D/CVE) to send the case file to OHA by the deadline specified in the notice and order; paragraph (d) describes the process for requesting a protective order; paragraph (e) allows for supplemental arguments after a protester reviews the CVE case file; paragraph (f) allows for a response to a protest within 15 days of the date the protest was filed; and paragraph (g) would require the Judge to base the decision on the case file and information provided by the parties or information requested by the Judge. The Judge may also investigate issues beyond those raised by the parties. Paragraph (h) proposes to allow a CO to award the contract after a protest is filed but before a decision is reached if the CO determines the public interest will be protected and notifies the Judge of his/her decision; paragraph (i) would require OHA to serve all parties with the decision, which would be considered a final agency decision; finally, paragraph (j) stipulates the effects of the decision upon the protested concern and the contract at issue.

    Section 134.1008 prohibits discovery in CVE Protest proceedings.

    Section 134.1009 allows for oral hearings only in extraordinary circumstances, as found by the Judge, and establishes that if a hearing is allowed, it would be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice in subpart B of Part 134.

    Section 134.1010 establishes the standard of review as preponderance of the evidence, in which the burden of proof falls on the protested firm, not the protester.

    Section 134.1011 specifies that the Judge will give greater weight to specific, signed, factual evidence than to unsupported allegations and opinions, and provides that the Judge may draw an adverse inference from failure to produce relevant information.

    Section 134.1012 applies the provisions of § 134.225 where relevant.

    Under § 134.1013, there will be no appeal of OHA's decision on a CVE Protest. However, paragraph (a) allows for the Judge to reconsider a CVE Protest decision if a party to the proceeding files a petition for reconsideration within twenty (20) calendar days after issuance of the written decision. The request for reconsideration must clearly show an error of fact or law material to the decision. The Judge may also reconsider a decision on his or her own initiative. Paragraph (b) states that if the Judge reverses the initial decision on reconsideration, the CO must comply with § 134.1007(j) in applying the new decision's results.

    C. 13 CFR Part 134, Subpart K

    The rule proposes a new subpart K to cover the procedures for filing appeals of denials and cancellations of verification for inclusion in the VA CVE database (CVE Appeals). Section 134.1101 states that the provisions of subparts A and B also apply to CVE Appeals. Section 134.1101(c) adds that the appeal procedures for CVE Appeals are separate from those governing SDVO SBC status appeals based on D/GC determinations, which are subject to 13 CFR 134 subpart E. Paragraph (d) states that protests of a concern's eligibility for inclusion in the VA's CVE database are governed by 13 CFR 134 subpart J.

    Section 134.1102 establishes standing to file a CVE Appeal upon a concern that has been denied verification of its CVE status or had its CVE status cancelled.

    Section 134.1103 permits CVE Appeals to OHA as long as the denial or cancellation was not based on the concern's failure to meet any veteran or service-disabled veteran eligibility criteria.

    Section 134.1104 requires CVE Appeals to be filed within 10 business days of being notified that the CVE status has been denied or cancelled. Paragraph (b) establishes the rules for counting days as those in § 134.202(d). Paragraph (c) requires OHA to dismiss any untimely appeal.

    Section 134.1105(a) requires the appeal petition to include a copy of the denial or cancellation, a statement as to why the cancellation or denial is in error, any information the appellant believes the Judge should consider, and the name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, and signature of appellant or its attorney. Paragraph (b) requires that the appellant serve copies of the appeal upon the D/CVE and VA counsel. Paragraph (c) requires all appeal petitions to include a certificate of service that meets the requirements of § 134.204(d). Paragraph (d) allows the Judge to dismiss appeal petitions that do not meet all the requirements of § 134.1105.

    Section 134.1106 applies the provisions in § 134.204 regarding the service and filing requirements of all pleadings and submissions allowed under 13 CFR part 134, subpart K.

    Section 134.1107 requires the D/CVE to send OHA the entire case file relating to the denial or cancellation, by the deadline specified in the notice and order. The case file must be authenticated and certified that it is the true and correct copy of the case file, to the best knowledge of the D/CVE.

    Section 134.1108 would permit a response to the appeal petition. Paragraph (a) allows the D/CVE, or his/her designee, or VA counsel, to respond to the appeal. Paragraph (b) establishes the close of record as 15 days after the Judge issues a notice and order informing all parties of the filing of the appeal. The notice and order would establish the date all responses to the appeal petition would be due. Paragraph (c) requires all respondents to serve their response upon all parties identified in the certificate of service attached to the appeal petition, as required by § 134.1105. Paragraph (d) prevents a reply to a response, unless allowed by the Judge.

    Section 134.1109 does not allow for discovery or oral hearings in CVE Appeals.

    Section 134.1110 prevents new evidence in CVE Appeals, unless good cause is shown.

    Under § 134.1111, the standard of review for CVE Appeals would be whether the denial or cancellation by the D/CVE was based on clear error of fact or law, which the appellant would have the burden of proof.

    Under § 134.1112(a), the Judge will decide a CVE Appeal, if practicable, within 60 calendar days after the close of record. Paragraph (b) requires the decision to contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, and any reasons for those findings and conclusions, and any relief so ordered. Paragraph (c) requires decisions to be based primarily on the evidence in the CVE case file, and arguments made during the appeal process. The Judge will, however, have the ability to consider issues that are beyond those raised by any pleading or in the denial or cancellation letter. Paragraph (d) establishes a Judge's decision as the final agency decision, becoming effective immediately. If OHA dismisses an appeal of a D/CVE denial or cancellation, the D/CVE determination remains in effect. Paragraph (e) requires OHA to serve a copy of the decision on all parties, or their counsel if represented. Paragraph (f) stipulates that if the appeal is granted and the appellant is found eligible for inclusion in the CVE database, the D/CVE must reinstate or include the appellant in the CVE database immediately. Paragraph (g) allows any party that has appeared in the proceeding, or the Secretary of VA or his or her designee, to file a petition for reconsideration. The petition must be filed within twenty (20) calendar days after service of the written decision, upon a clear showing of an error of fact or law material to the decision. The Judge also may reconsider a decision on his or her own initiative.

    Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13132, 13771, and 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 rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. This rule is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800. This proposed rule would amend the rules of practice for the SBA's OHA in order to implement procedures for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database. As such, the rule has no effect on the amount or dollar value of any Federal contract requirements or of any financial assistance provided through SBA or VA. Therefore, the rule is not likely to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, result in a major increase in costs or prices, or have a significant adverse effect on competition or the United States economy. In addition, this rule does not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of such recipients, nor raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

    Executive Order 12988

    This action meets applicable standards set forth in section 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

    This rule does not have Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive Order. As such it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Executive Order 13771

    This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The SBA has determined that this rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires Federal agencies to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to consider the potential impact of the regulations on small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an IRFA, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This proposed rule would revise the regulations governing cases before SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), SBA's administrative tribunal. These regulations are procedural by nature. Specifically, the proposed rule would establish rules of practice for the SBA's OHA in order to implement protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database, new types of administrative litigation mandated by sections 1832 and 1833 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This legislation provides a new statutory right to challenge eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database, as well as denials and cancellation of inclusion in the CVE database. This proposed rule merely provides the rules of practice at OHA for the orderly hearing and disposition of CVE database inclusion protests and denials and cancellations of CVE database inclusion. While SBA does not anticipate that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on any small business, we do welcome comments from any small business setting out how and to what degree this proposed rule would affect it economically. Therefore, the Administrator of SBA certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 134

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to justice, Lawyers, Organization and functions (government agencies).

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR part 134 as follows:

    PART 134—RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING CASES BEFORE THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 1. The authority citation for part 134 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 504; 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 634(i), 637(a), 648(l), 656(i), and 687(c); 38 U.S.C. 8127(f); E.O. 12549, 51 FR 6370, 3 CFR, 1986 Comp., p. 189.

    2. Amend § 134.102 by adding paragraphs (u) and (v) to read as follows:
    § 134.102 Jurisdiction of OHA.

    (u) Protests of eligibility for inclusion in the Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) database;

    (v) Appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database.

    3. Amend § 134.201 by: a. Removing the word “and” in paragraph (b)(7); b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(8) as paragraph (b)(10); c. Adding new paragraphs (b)(8) and (b)(9).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 134.201 Scope of the rules in this Subpart B.

    (b) * * *

    (8) For protests of eligibility for inclusion in the Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) database, in subpart J of this part;

    (9) For appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database, in subpart K of this part; and

    4. Add subpart J to read as follows: Subpart J—Rules of Practice for Protests of Eligibility for Inclusion in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) Database (CVE Protests) Sec. 134.1001 Scope of rules. 134.1002 Who may file a CVE Protest? 134.1003 Grounds for filing a CVE Protest. 134.1004 Commencement of CVE Protests. 134.1005 Contents of the CVE Protest. 134.1006 Service and filing requirements. 134.1007 Processing a CVE Protest. 134.1008 Discovery. 134.1009 Oral hearings. 134.1010 Standard of review and burden of proof. 134.1011 Weight of evidence. 134.1012 The record. 134.1013 Request for reconsideration. Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 8127(f)(8)(B).

    Subpart J—Rules of Practice for Protests of Eligibility for Inclusion in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) Database (CVE Protests)
    § 134.1001 Scope of rules.

    (a) The rules of practice in this subpart J apply to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Verification and Evaluation protests (CVE Protests).

    (b) Except where inconsistent with this subpart, the provisions of subparts A and B of this part apply to protests listed in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) The protest procedures described in this subpart are separate from those governing protests and appeals of a concern's size or status as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern (SDVO SBC) for a non-Department of Veterans Affairs (non-VA) procurement. All protests relating to whether a veteran-owned concern is a “small” business for purposes of any Federal program are subject to part 121 of this chapter and must be filed in accordance with that part. If a protester protests both the size of the concern and the concern's eligibility for the CVE database, SBA will process each protest concurrently. All protests relating to a concern's status as a SDVO SBC for a non-VA procurement are subject to part 125 of this chapter and must be filed in accordance with that part. SBA does not review issues concerning contract administration.

    (d) Protests of a concern's eligibility for a non-VA procurement as a SDVO SBC are governed by 13 CFR part 125 subpart D.

    (e) Appeals relating to determinations made by SBA's Director, Office of Government Contracting regarding SDVO SBC status are governed by subpart E of this part.

    (f) Appeals of denials and cancellations of verification for inclusion in the CVE database are governed by subpart K of this part.

    § 134.1002 Who may file a CVE Protest?

    A CVE Protest may be filed by:

    (a) The Secretary of the VA, or his/her designee; or

    (b) In the case of a small business that is awarded a contract for a VA procurement, the contracting officer or an offeror.

    § 134.1003 Grounds for filing a CVE Protest.

    (a) Status. In cases where the protest is based on service-connected disability, permanent and severe disability, or veteran status, the Judge will only consider a protest that presents specific allegations supporting the contention that the owner(s) cannot provide documentation from the VA, Department of Defense, or the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration to show that they meet the definition of veteran, service-disabled veteran, or service-disabled veteran with a permanent and severe disability.

    (b) Ownership and control. In cases where the protest is based on ownership and control, the Judge will consider a protest only if the protester presents credible evidence that the concern is not 51% owned and controlled by one or more veterans or service-disabled veterans.

    (c) Date for Determining Eligibility. The Judge will determine a protested concern's eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database as of the date the protest was filed.

    § 134.1004 Commencement of CVE Protests.

    (a) Timeliness. (1) The Secretary of the VA, or his/her designee, may file a CVE Protest at any time.

    (2) Where the CVE Protest is in connection with a VA procurement:

    (i) An offeror must file a CVE Protest within five business days of notification of the apparent awardee's identity.

    (ii) A contracting officer may file a CVE Protest at any time during the life of the VA contract.

    (3) The rule for counting days is in § 134.202(d).

    (4) An untimely protest will be dismissed.

    (b) Filing. (1) Private Parties. Interested parties, other than the contracting officer or Secretary of the VA or his/her designee, must deliver their CVE Protests in person, by email, by facsimile, by express delivery service, or by U.S. mail (postmarked within the applicable time period) to the contracting officer.

    (2) Referral to OHA. The contracting officer must forward to OHA any non-premature CVE Protest received, notwithstanding whether he/she believes it is sufficiently specific or timely. The contracting officer must send all CVE Protests, along with a referral letter, directly to OHA, addressed to Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, by email at [email protected], or by facsimile to (202) 205-6390, marked Attn: CVE Protest. The referral letter must include information pertaining to the solicitation that may be necessary for OHA to determine timeliness and standing, including:

    (i) The solicitation number;

    (ii) The name, address, telephone number, email address, and facsimile number of the contracting officer;

    (iii) Whether the contract was sole source or set-aside;

    (iv) Whether the protester submitted an offer;

    (v) Whether the protested concern was the apparent successful offeror;

    (vi) Whether the procurement was conducted using sealed bid or negotiated procedures;

    (vii) The bid opening date, if applicable;

    (viii) When the protest was submitted to the contracting officer;

    (ix) When the protester received notification about the apparent successful offeror, if applicable; and

    (x) Whether a contract has been awarded.

    (3) Protests filed by Secretary of the VA. The Secretary of VA or his/her designee must submit his/her CVE Protest directly to OHA in accordance with the procedures in § 134.204.

    (4) Protests filed by a contracting officer. The contracting officer must submit his/her CVE Protest directly to OHA in accordance with the procedures in § 134.204. The protest should include the information set forth in the referral letter in Paragraph (2).

    § 134.1005 Contents of the CVE Protest.

    (a) CVE Protests must be in writing. There is no required format for a CVE Protest, but it must include the following:

    (1) The solicitation or contract number, if applicable;

    (2) Specific allegations supported by credible evidence that the concern does not meet the eligibility requirements for inclusion in the CVE database, listed in § 134,1003;

    (3) Any other pertinent information the Judge should consider; and

    (4) The name, address, telephone number, and email address or facsimile number, if available, and signature of the protester or its attorney.

    (b) If the protester intends to seek access to the CVE case file under § 134.205, the protester should include in its protest a request for a protective order. Unless good cause is shown, a protester must request a protective order within five days of filing the protest.

    § 134.1006 Service and filing requirements.

    The provisions of § 134.204 apply to the service and filing of all pleadings and other submissions permitted under this subpart.

    § 134.1007 Processing a CVE Protest.

    (a) Notice and order. If the Judge determines that the protest is timely, sufficiently specific, and based upon protestable allegations, the Judge will issue a notice and order, notifying the protester, the protested concern, the Director, CVE (D/CVE), VA Counsel, and, if applicable, the contracting officer of the date OHA received the protest and ordering a due date for responses.

    (b) Dismissal of protest. If the Judge determines that the protest is premature, untimely, nonspecific, or is based on non-protestable allegations, the Judge will dismiss the protest and will send the contracting officer, D/CVE, and the protester a notice of dismissal, citing the reason(s) for the dismissal. The dismissal is a final agency action.

    (c) Transmission of the case file. Upon receipt of a notice and order, the D/CVE must deliver to OHA the entire case file relating to the protested concern's inclusion in the CVE database. The notice and order will establish the timetable for transmitting the case file to OHA. The D/CVE must certify and authenticate that the case file, to the best of his/her knowledge, is a true and correct copy of the case file.

    (d) Protective order. A protester seeking access to the CVE case file must file a timely request for a protective order under § 134.205. Except for good cause, a protester must request a protective order within five days of filing the protest. Even after issuance of a protective order, OHA will not disclose income tax returns or privileged information.

    (e) Supplemental allegations. If, after viewing documents in the CVE case file for the first time under a protective order, a protester wishes to supplement its protest with additional argument, the protester may do so. Any such supplement is due at OHA no later than 15 days from the date the protester receives or reviews the CVE case file.

    (f) Response. (1) The protested concern, the D/CVE, the contracting officer, and any other interested party may respond to the protest and supplemental protest, if one is filed. The response is due no later than 15 days from the date the protest or supplemental protest was filed with OHA. The record closes the date the final response is due.

    (2) Service. The respondent must serve its response upon the protester or its counsel and upon each of the persons identified in the certificate of service attached to the notice and order or, if a protective order is issued, in accordance with the terms of the protective order.

    (3) Reply to a response. No reply to a response will be permitted unless the Judge directs otherwise.

    (g) Basis for decision. The decision will be based primarily on the case file and information provided by the protester, the protested concern, and any other parties. However, the Judge may investigate issues beyond those raised in the protest and may use other information or make requests for additional information to the protester, the protested concern, or VA.

    (h) Award of contract. The contracting officer may award a contract during the period between the date he/she receives a protest and the date the Judge issues a decision only if the contracting officer determines that an award must be made to protect the public interest and notifies the Judge in writing of any such determination. Notwithstanding such a determination, the provisions of paragraph (j) of this section shall apply to the procurement in question.

    (i) The decision. OHA will serve a copy of the written decision on each party, or, if represented by counsel, on its counsel. The decision is considered the final agency action, and it becomes effective upon issuance.

    (j) Effect of decision. (1) A contracting officer may award a contract to a protested concern after the Judge has determined either that the protested concern is eligible for inclusion in the CVE database or has dismissed all protests against it.

    (2) A contracting officer shall not award a contract to a protested concern that the Judge has determined is not eligible for inclusion in the CVE database. If the contracting officer has already made an award under paragraph (h) of this section, the contracting officer shall either terminate the contract or not exercise the next option.

    (3) The contracting officer must update the Federal Procurement Data System and other procurement reporting databases to reflect the Judge's decision.

    (4) If the Judge finds the protested concern ineligible for inclusion in the CVE database, D/CVE must immediately remove the protested concern from the CVE database.

    (5) A concern found to be ineligible may not submit an offer on a future VA procurement until the protested concern reapplies to the Vendor Information Pages Verification Program and has been reentered into the CVE database.

    § 134.1008 Discovery.

    Discovery will not be permitted in CVE Protest proceedings.

    § 134.1009 Oral hearings.

    Oral hearings will be held in CVE Protest proceedings only upon a finding by the Judge of extraordinary circumstances. If such an oral hearing is ordered, the proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with those rules of subpart B of this part as the Judge deems appropriate.

    § 134.1010 Standard of review and burden of proof.

    The protested concern has the burden of proving its eligibility, by a preponderance of the evidence.

    § 134.1011 Weight of evidence.

    The Judge will give greater weight to specific, signed, factual evidence than to general, unsupported allegations or opinions. In the case of refusal or failure to furnish requested information within a required time period, the Judge may assume that disclosure would be contrary to the interests of the party failing to make disclosure.

    § 134.1012 The record.

    Where relevant, the provisions of § 134.225 apply. In a protest under this subpart, the contents of the record also include the case file or solicitation submitted to OHA in accordance with § 134.1007.

    § 134.1013 Request for Reconsideration.

    The decision on a CVE Protest may not be appealed. However:

    (a) The Judge may reconsider a CVE Protest decision. Any party that has appeared in the proceeding, or the Secretary of VA or his/her designee, may request reconsideration by filing with OHA and serving a petition for reconsideration on all the parties to the CVE Protest within twenty (20) calendar days after service of the written decision. The request for reconsideration must clearly show an error of fact or law material to the decision. The Judge may also reconsider a decision on his or her own initiative.

    (b) If the Judge reverses his or her initial decision on reconsideration, the contracting officer must follow § 134.1007(j) in applying the new decision's results.

    5. Add subpart K to read as follows: Subpart K—Rules of Practice for Appeals of Denials and Cancellations of Verification for Inclusion in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) Database (CVE Appeals) Sec. 134.1101 Scope of rules. 134.1102 Who may file a CVE Appeal? 134.1103 Grounds for filing a CVE Appeal. 134.1104 Commencement of CVE Appeals. 134.1105 The appeal petition. 134.1106 Service and filing requirements. 134.1107 Transmission of the case file. 134.1108 Response to an appeal petition. 134.1109 Discovery and oral hearings. 134.1110 New evidence. 134.1111 Standard of review and burden of proof. 134.1112 The decision. Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 8127(f)(8)(A).

    Subpart K—Rules of Practice for Appeals of Denials and Cancellations of Verification for Inclusion in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) Database (CVE Appeals)
    § 134.1101 Scope of rules.

    (a) The rules of practice in this subpart K apply to appeals of denials and cancellations of verification for inclusion in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation Database (CVE Appeals).

    (b) Except where inconsistent with this subpart, the provisions of subparts A and B of this part apply to appeals listed in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Appeals relating to determinations made by SBA's Director, Office of Government Contracting regarding Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern (SDVO SBC) status are governed by subpart E of this part.

    (d) Protests of a concern's eligibility for inclusion in the VA's CVE database are governed by subpart J of this part.

    § 134.1102 Who may file a CVE Appeal?

    A concern that has been denied verification of its CVE status or has had its CVE status cancelled may appeal the denial or cancellation to OHA.

    § 134.1103 Grounds for filing a CVE Appeal.

    Denials and cancellations of verification of CVE status may be appealed to OHA, so long as the denial or cancellation is not based on the failure to meet any veteran or service-disabled veteran eligibility criteria. Such denials and cancellations are final VA decisions and not subject to appeal to OHA.

    § 134.1104 Commencement of CVE Appeals.

    (a) A concern whose application for CVE verification has been denied or whose CVE status has been cancelled must file its appeal within 10 business days of receipt of the denial or cancellation.

    (b) The rule for counting days is in § 134.202(d).

    (c) OHA will dismiss an untimely appeal.

    § 134.1105 The appeal petition.

    (a) Format. CVE Appeals must be in writing. There is no required format for an appeal petition; however, it must include the following:

    (1) A copy of the denial or cancellation and the date the appellant received it;

    (2) A statement of why the cancellation or denial is in error;

    (3) Any other pertinent information the Judge should consider; and

    (4) The name, address, telephone number, and email address or facsimile number, if available, and signature of the appellant or its attorney.

    (b) Service. The appellant must serve copies of the entire appeal petition upon the Director, Center for Verification and Evaluation (D/CVE) and VA Counsel at [email protected]

    (c) Certificate of Service. The appellant must attach to the appeal petition a signed certificate of service meeting the requirements of § 134.204(d).

    (d) Dismissal. An appeal petition that does not meet all the requirements of this section may be dismissed by the Judge at his/her own initiative or upon motion of a respondent.

    § 134.1106 Service and filing requirements.

    The provisions of § 134.204 apply to the service and filing of all pleadings and other submissions permitted under this subpart.

    § 134.1107 Transmission of the case file.

    Once a CVE Appeal is filed, the D/CVE must deliver to OHA the entire case file relating to the denial or cancellation. The Judge will issue a notice and order establishing the timetable for transmitting the case file to OHA. The D/CVE must certify and authenticate that the case file, to the best of his/her knowledge, is a true and correct copy of the case file.

    § 134.1108 Response to an appeal petition.

    (a) Who may respond. The D/CVE or his/her designee or counsel for VA may respond to the CVE Appeal. The response should present arguments to the issues presented on appeal.

    (b) Time limits. The notice and order will inform the parties of the filing of the appeal petition, establish the close of record as 15 days after service of the notice and order, and inform the parties that OHA must receive any responses to the appeal petition no later than the close of record.

    (c) Service. The respondent must serve its response upon the appellant and upon each of the persons identified in the certificate of service attached to the appeal petition pursuant to § 134.1105.

    (d) Reply to a response. No reply to a response will be permitted unless the Judge directs otherwise.

    § 134.1109 Discovery and oral hearings.

    Discovery will not be permitted and oral hearings will not be held.

    § 134.1110 New evidence.

    Except for good cause shown, evidence beyond the case file will not be admitted.

    § 134.1111 Standard of review and burden of proof.

    The standard of review is whether the D/CVE denial or cancellation was based on clear error of fact or law. The appellant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence.

    § 134.1112 The decision.

    (a) Timing. The Judge shall decide a CVE Appeal, insofar as practicable, within 60 calendar days after close of the record.

    (b) Contents. Following closure of the record, the Judge will issue a decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law, reasons for such findings and conclusions, and any relief ordered.

    (c) Basis for decision. Decisions under this part will be based primarily on the evidence in the CVE case file, arguments made on appeal, and any response(s) thereto. However, the Judge, in his/her sole discretion, may consider issues beyond those raised in the pleadings and the denial or cancellation letter.

    (d) Finality. The decision is the final agency decision and becomes effective upon issuance. Where OHA dismisses an appeal of a D/CVE denial or cancellation, the D/CVE determination remains in effect.

    (e) Service. OHA will serve a copy of all written decisions on each party, or, if represented by counsel, on its counsel.

    (f) Effect. If the Judge grants the appeal and finds the appellant eligible for inclusion in the CVE database, the D/CVE must immediately reinstate or include the appellant, as the case may be, in the CVE database.

    (g) Reconsideration. A decision of the Judge may be reconsidered. Any party that has appeared in the proceeding, or the Secretary of VA or his or her designee, may request reconsideration by filing with OHA and serving a petition for reconsideration on all parties to the CVE Appeal within twenty (20) calendar days after service of the written decision, upon a clear showing of an error of fact or law material to the decision. The Judge also may reconsider a decision on his or her own initiative.

    Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20384 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0650; Product Identifier 2017-NE-19-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 875-17, RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17, RB211-Trent 884B-17, RB211-Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and RB211-Trent 895-17 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. This proposed AD would require replacement of the LPC case A-frame hollow locating pins. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this NPRM by October 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    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-2017-0650; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    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-2017-0650; Product Identifier 2017-NE-19-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0096, dated June 1, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    All low pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins, Part Number (P/N) FK11612, manufactured between 01 January 2012 and 31 May 2016, have potentially been subjected to incorrect heat treatment. This may have reduced the integrity of the pin such that in a Fan Blade Off (FBO) event it is unable to withstand the applied loads. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of location of the A-frame following an FBO event, possibly resulting in engine separation, loss of thrust reverser unit, release of high-energy debris, or an uncontrolled fire. To address this potential unsafe condition, RR identified the affected engines that have these A-frame hollow locating pins installed and published Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ463, providing instructions for replacement of these pins. The NMSB was recently revised to correct an error in Section 1.A., where ESN 51477 was inadvertently omitted. That ESN was correctly listed in Section 1.D.(1)(f) for the compliance time. For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time replacement of the affected A-frame hollow locating pins P/N FK11612. This AD also prohibits installation of pins that were released to service before 05 July 2016.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0650.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    RR has issued Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017. The Alert SB describes procedures for replacement of all non-conforming A-frame locating pins. 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 Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require replacement of all non-conforming A-frame locating pins.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 95 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    A-frame pin replacement 9.5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $807.50 $453.00 $1,260.50 $119,747.50
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    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): Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2017-0650; Product Identifier 2017-NE-19-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 30, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17 and 895-17 engines with an engine serial number (ESN) listed in Section 1.A., Effectivity, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the locating pins, engine separation and loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) At the next scheduled on-wing maintenance opportunity after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin using Section 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017, within the compliance times listed in Section 1.D.(1), Planning Information, except for those listed in Sections 1.D.(1)(a) and (b) that have a compliance requirement of November 13, 2017.

    (2) After the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, at the next engine shop visit, replace each affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, part number (P/N) FK11612, with a part eligible for installation, using Section 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017.

    (h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any engine with an affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, P/N FK11612, unless the pin is eligible for installation.

    (i) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD:

    (1) An affected part is an LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, P/N FK11612, except those with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.

    (2) A part eligible for installation is an LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, P/N FK11612, with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.

    (3) An engine shop visit is when the engine is subject to a serviceability check and repair, rebuild, or overhaul.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to: [email protected].

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

    (k) Related Information

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

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2017-0096, dated June 1, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0650.

    (3) Rolls-Royce plc Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017, can be obtained from RR plc, using the contact information in paragraph (k)(4) of this proposed AD.

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

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 22, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20718 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Parts 778 and 773 Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 264 Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. FHWA-2016-0037] FHWA RIN 2125-AF73: FRA RIN 2130-AC66: FTA RIN 2132-AB32 Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This NPRM provides interested parties with the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations governing the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews (Program) established by Section 1309 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). Section 1309 directed the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to establish a pilot program authorizing up to five States to conduct environmental reviews and make approvals for projects under State environmental laws and regulations instead of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FAST Act requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to promulgate regulations to implement the requirements of the Program, including application requirements and criteria necessary to determine whether State laws and regulations are at least as stringent as the applicable Federal law. The FHWA, FRA, and FTA, hereinafter referred to as “the Agencies,” are proposing these regulations on behalf of the Secretary and seek comments on the proposals contained in this NPRM. This rule would also implement a provision in Section 1308 of the FAST Act that amends the corrective action period that the Agencies must provide to a State participating in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (Section 327 Program).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the document number at the top of this document, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery/Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For FHWA, James Gavin, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-1473, or Diane Mobley, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1366. For FRA, Michael Johnsen, Office of Railroad Policy and Development, (202) 493-1310, or Chris Van Nostrand, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 493-6058. For FTA, Megan Blum, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 366-0463, or Helen Serassio, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1974. The Agencies are located at 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312), which contains new requirements related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Section 1309 of the FAST Act, codified at 23 U.S.C. 330, established a pilot program that allows the Secretary to approve up to five States to use one or more State environmental laws instead of NEPA for environmental review of surface transportation projects. In order to be eligible to participate in the Program, a State must have assumed the Secretary's responsibilities for environmental reviews under 23 U.S.C. 327. To participate in the Program, a State must submit an application and enter into an agreement with DOT.

    Section 1308(5) of the FAST Act amended the 23 U.S.C. 327(j) termination procedures for the Section 327 Program by: (1) Changing the number of days for corrective action the Agencies must provide to the State from 30 days to not less than 120 calendar days, and 2) upon the request of the Governor of the State, requiring the Agencies provide a detailed description of each responsibility in need of corrective action.

    Under Section 1309 of the FAST Act (23 U.S.C. 330), DOT, in consultation with the Chair of CEQ, must promulgate regulations implementing the requirements of that provision. The proposed regulations would establish the Program, specify the information that applicants must submit to participate in the Program, and define the criteria the Agencies, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary and with the concurrence of the Chair of CEQ, will use to determine whether a State law or regulation is as stringent as the Federal requirements under NEPA, the procedures implementing NEPA, and NEPA-related regulations and Executive Orders. This NPRM proposes regulations establishing the Program and requests the public's comments.

    Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals 23 CFR Part 778—Pilot Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews

    The Agencies propose a title to this part that clearly describes the Program's scope.

    Section 778.101 Purpose

    The Agencies propose a section to explain the purpose of the Program.

    Section 778.103 Eligibility and Certain Limitations

    The Agencies propose a section describing the Program's eligibility requirements and the limitations of a State's participation.

    This section proposes four requirements necessary for a State to participate in the Program. First, a State must act through the Governor or top-ranking State transportation official who is charged with responsibility for highway construction. Second, a State must expressly consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts for compliance, discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility under this Program. Third, a State must have assumed the responsibilities of the Secretary under 23 U.S.C. 327. Fourth, a State must have laws in effect authorizing the State to take the actions necessary to carry out the alternative environmental review and approval procedures under State laws and regulations.

    Section 778.103 identifies two conditions governing a State's participation in the Program. First, State environmental laws and regulations may only be substituted as a means for complying with NEPA, procedures governing the implementation of NEPA, and related regulations and Executive Orders. Second, compliance with State environmental laws and regulations does not substitute for compliance with any other applicable Federal environmental requirements.

    Section 778.105 Application Requirements for Participation in the Program

    The Agencies propose a section describing the required content of an eligible State's application to participate in the Program.

    To participate in the Program, any eligible State would submit an application that includes:

    (1) A full and complete description of the alternative environmental review and approval procedures the State proposes to use, including (i) the procedures the State uses to engage the public and consider alternatives to the proposed action; and (ii) the extent to which the State considers environmental consequences or impacts on resources potentially impacted by the proposed actions (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8).

    (2) Identification of each Federal environmental requirement the State is seeking to substitute, within the limitations of this section;

    (3) Identification of each State environmental law and regulation that the State intends to substitute for a Federal environmental requirement, within the limitations of this section;

    (4) A detailed explanation of how the State environmental law and regulation intended to substitute for a Federal environmental requirement is at least as stringent as the Federal requirement;

    (5) A detailed description of the projects or classes of transportation projects for which the State anticipates exercising the authority that may be granted under the Program;

    (6) Verification that the State has the financial and personnel resources necessary to carry out the Program;

    (7) Evidence that the State has sought public comments on its application prior to its submittal and the State's response to any comments it received;

    (8) A point of contact for questions regarding the application and a point of contact regarding potential implementation of the Program (if different);

    (9) Certification and explanation by the State's Attorney General or other State official legally empowered by State law to issue legal opinions that bind the State that the State has legal authority to enter into the Program, and that the State consents to exclusive Federal court jurisdiction for the compliance, discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility under this Program;

    (10) Certification by the State's Attorney General or other State official legally empowered by State law to issue legal opinions that bind the State that the State has laws that are comparable to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, including providing that any decision regarding the public availability of a document under those laws is reviewable by a court of competent jurisdiction; and

    (11) The State Governor's (or in the case of the District of Columbia, the Mayor's) or the State's top ranking transportation official's signature approving the application.

    Section 778.107 Application Review and Approval

    The Agencies propose a section establishing the review and approval process for a State's application to the Program.

    To begin the review and approval process, the applicable Operating Administration also would solicit public comments on a State's complete application and would consider comments before making a decision on the application. In addition to the State's application, the Operating Administration may provide other documents for public review such as a draft of the proposed agreement. After receiving a complete application, the Operating Administration would have 120 calendar days to make a decision on the State's application. The Operating Administration would transmit the decision to the applicant, with an explanation in writing.

    In making the decision, the Operating Administration would approve a State's application only if:

    (1) That State is party to an agreement with the Operating Administration under 23 U.S.C. 327;

    (2) The Operating Administration has determined, after considering any public comments received, the State has the capacity, including financial and personnel, to undertake the alternative environmental review and approval procedures; and

    (3) The Operating Administration, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Chair of CEQ, and after considering public comments received, has determined the State laws or regulations described in the State's application are at least as stringent as the Federal requirements they substitute.

    Before the Operating Administration approves the application, the State must enter into a written agreement with the Operating Administration. At a minimum the written agreement must:

    (1) Be executed by the Governor or top-ranking transportation official in the State charged with responsibility for highway construction;

    (2) Provide that the State agrees to assume the responsibilities of the Program, as identified by the Operating Administration;

    (3) Provide that the State expressly consents to accept Federal court jurisdiction for the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of any responsibility it undertakes for the Program;

    (4) Certify that State laws or regulations exist that authorize the State to carry out the responsibilities of the Program;

    (5) Certify that State laws or regulations exist that are comparable to FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552), including a provision that any decision regarding the public availability of a document under the State laws or regulations is reviewable by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

    (6) Commit the State to maintain the personnel and financial resources necessary to carry out its responsibilities under the Program;

    (7) Have a term of not more than 5 years, the term of a State's agreement with the Operating Administration in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327, or a term ending on December 4, 2027, whichever is sooner; and

    (8) Be renewable.

    The Operating Administration's execution of the Agreement would constitute approval of the application. A State approved to participate in the Program may further apply the approved alternative environmental review and approval procedures to locally administered projects for up to 25 local governments at the request of those local governments. For such locally administered projects, the State would be responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the approved alternative State procedures are met.

    Section 778.109 Criteria for Determining Stringency

    After consultation with the Agencies, CEQ identified criteria the Agencies would use to determine whether the State laws or regulations are at least as stringent as the Federal NEPA requirements. These criteria provide for protection of the environment, provide opportunity for public participation and comment (including access to the documentation necessary to review the potential impact of a project), and ensure consistent review of projects that would otherwise have been covered under NEPA. The legislative and regulatory citations noted are intended to indicate, in general, the basis for the criteria. Based on CEQ's criteria, the Agencies and CEQ propose that to be considered at least as stringent as the Federal NEPA requirements, a State environmental law or regulation, at a minimum, must:

    (a) Define the types of actions that normally require an environmental impact assessment, including government-sponsored projects such as those receiving Federal financial assistance or permit approvals. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 40 CFR 1508.18);

    (b) Ensure an early process for determining the scope of the action and issues that need to be addressed, identifying the significant issues, and for the classification of the appropriate environmental impact assessment in accordance with the significance of the likely impacts. For actions that may result in significant impacts on the human environment the scoping process should be an open and public process. (23 U.S.C. 139(e); 40 CFR 1501.3, 1501.4, 1501.7, 1507.3(b), 1508.14, and 1508.25);

    (c) Prohibit agencies and non-governmental proponents from taking action concerning the proposal until the environmental impact evaluation is complete when such action would (1) have adverse environmental impacts or (2) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (40 CFR 1506.1 and 1506.10(b)).

    (d) Protect the integrity and objectivity of the analysis by requiring the agency to take responsibility for the scope and content of the analysis and by preventing conflicts of interest among the parties developing the analysis and the parties with financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D); 40 CFR 1506.5);

    (e) Based on a proposed action's purpose and need, require objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (including the alternative of not taking the action) if it may result in significant impacts to the human environment or, for those actions that may not result in significant impacts, consideration of alternatives if they will involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii); 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(E); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(A); 40 CFR 1502.13, 1502.14, and 1508.9);

    (f) Require an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a proposed action (and any reasonable alternatives) on the human environment, and a comparison of those potential impacts with existing environmental conditions (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 1502.16, 1508.9(b), and 1508.4);

    (g) Require the consideration of appropriate mitigation for the impacts associated with a proposal and reasonable alternatives (including avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating the impact over time, and compensating for the impact) (40 CFR 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h), and 1508.20);

    (h) Provide for adequate interagency participation, including appropriate coordination and consultation with State, Federal, tribal, and local agencies with jurisdiction by law, special expertise, or an interest with respect to any environmental impact associated with the proposal, and for collaboration that would eliminate duplication of reviews. For actions that may result in significant impacts to the human environment, the process should allow for the development of plans for interagency coordination and public involvement, and the setting of timetables for the review process (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 139(d) and 139(g); 40 CFR 1500.5(e), 1501.6, 1502.25, and part 1503);

    (i) Provide an opportunity for public participation and comment that is commensurate with the significance of the proposal's impacts on the human environment, and require public access to the documentation developed during the environmental review and a process to respond to public comments. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(A); FAST Act, Sec. 1309(c)(2)(B)(ii); 40 CFR 1502.19, part 1503, and 1506.6; and E.O. 11514, Sec. 1(b));

    (j) Include procedures for the elevation and resolution of interagency disputes prior to a final decision on the proposed project. (23 U.S.C. 139(h); 40 CFR part 1504);

    (k) Require, for the conclusion of the process, a concise documentation of findings (for actions that would not likely result in significant impacts to the human environment) or, for actions that may result in significant impacts, a concise record that states the decision that: (i) Identifies all alternatives considered (specifying which were environmentally preferable); (ii) identifies and discusses all factors that were balanced by the agency in making its decision, and states how those considerations entered into the decision; (iii) states whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not, why they were not; and (iv) describes the monitoring and enforcement program that will be adopted where applicable for any mitigation (40 CFR 1501.4 and 1505.2);

    (l) Require the agency to supplement environmental impacts assessments if there are substantial changes in the proposal that are relevant to environmental concerns or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (23 U.S.C. 330(e)(3); 40 CFR 1502.9); and

    (m) Allow for the use of procedures that facilitate process efficiency such as the identification of categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment and which have been found to not have such effect with procedures that require the consideration of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a higher level of analysis, the use of tiering, programmatic approaches, adoption, incorporation by reference, approaches to eliminate duplication with other Federal requirements, and special procedures to address emergency situations (23 U.S.C. 139(b)(3); 40 CFR 1502.20, 1502.21, 1502.25, 1506.2, 1506.3, 1506.4, 1507.3(b)(ii), and 1508.4).

    Section 778.111 Review and Termination

    The Agencies propose a section describing the termination date of the Program, the Operating Administration's responsibilities to review each approved State's performance implementing the Program, and the Operating Administration's right to terminate a State's participation in the Program early.

    Under FAST Act Section 1309, the Program will terminate 12 years after enactment (December 4, 2027). Until then, the Operating Administration would review each participating State's performance, at least once every 5 years. The Operating Administration would provide public notice and an opportunity for public comment on the review. At the conclusion of the Operating Administration's last review before the expiration of the term, the Operating Administration may extend a State's participation in the Program for an additional term not to exceed 5 years (if this extension ends before December 4, 2027) or it may terminate the State's participation in the Program.

    Finally, the Operating Administration could terminate a State's participation in the Program if the Operating Administration, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary and the Chair of CEQ, determines a participating State's performance fails to meet the terms of the written agreement, the requirements of 23 CFR part 778, or 23 U.S.C. 330. Before terminating the State's participation, the Operating Administration would first notify the State and allow 90 days for the State to take corrective action. If the State fails to take corrective action during this time, the Operating Administration may then terminate that State's participation in the Program.

    23 CFR Part 773—Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program Application Requirements and Termination

    The Agencies propose to revise section 773.117(a)(2) by modifying the current termination time period language to state that the Operating Administration(s) must provide the State no less than 120 days to take corrective actions.

    The Agencies propose to add a new section 773.117(a)(3) to include that on the request of the Governor of the State, the Operating Administration(s) shall provide a detailed description of each responsibility in need of corrective action regarding an inadequacy identified by the Operating Administration.

    49 CFR Part 264—Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews and the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program

    The Agencies propose to revise the heading for 49 CFR part 264 and add a reference to 23 U.S.C. 330 and the Program application procedures in 23 CFR part 778 as applicable to rail projects. This cross-reference would assist potential FRA applicants, State and Federal agencies, and the public.

    49 CFR Part 622—Environmental Impact and Related Procedures

    The Agencies propose to revise the authorities in subpart A—Environmental Procedures to include a reference to 23 U.S.C. 330 and the application procedures in 23 CFR part 778 as applicable to transit projects. This cross-reference would assist potential FTA applicants, State and Federal agencies, and the public.

    Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    The Agencies have the authority for this rulemaking action under 49 U.S.C. 322(a), which provides authority to “[a]n officer of the Department of Transportation [to] prescribe regulations to carry out the duties and powers of the officer.” The Secretary delegated this authority to the Agencies' Administrators in 49 CFR 1.81(a)(3), which provides that the authority to prescribe regulations contained in 49 U.S.C. 322(a) is delegated to each Administrator “with respect to statutory provisions for which authority is delegated by other sections in [49 CFR part 1].”

    Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    The Agencies will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above and will make such comments available for examination in the docket at the above regulations.gov address. The Agencies will file comments received after the comment closing date and consider them to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the Agencies will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. The Agencies may publish a final rule at any time after close of the comment period.

    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    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). The Agencies have determined preliminarily that this action would not be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and would not be significant within the meaning of DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11032). This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Agencies anticipate that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. The Agencies do not have specific data to assess the monetary value of the benefits from the proposed changes because such data does not exist and would be difficult to develop.

    This proposed rulemaking would not adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. This proposed rulemaking sets forth application requirements for the Program, which will result in only minimal costs to Program applicants. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agencies have evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on small entities and anticipate that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. The proposed rule addresses application requirements for States wishing to participate in the Program. As such, it affects only States, and States are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and the Agencies certify that this action would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the Agencies will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Additionally, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the Program in accordance with changes made in the Program by the Federal Government.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. The Agencies analyzed this proposed action in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and determined that it would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The Agencies have also determined that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The Agencies invite State and local governments with an interest in this rulemaking to comment on the effect that adoption of specific proposals may have on State or local governments.

    Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The Agencies have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, and believe that it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The Agencies have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agencies have determined that this action is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The DOT's regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities (49 CFR part 17) apply to this program. Accordingly, the Agencies solicit comments on this issue.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The Agencies have determined that this proposal does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT Order 5610.2(a), 77 FR 27534 (May 10, 2012), require DOT agencies to achieve environmental justice (EJ) as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The DOT Order requires DOT agencies to address compliance with the Executive Order and the DOT Order in all rulemaking activities. In addition, FHWA and FTA have issued additional documents relating to administration of the Executive Order and the DOT Order. On June 14, 2012, the FHWA issued an update to its EJ order, FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. FTA also issued an update to its EJ policy, FTA Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Recipients, 77 FR 42077 (July 17, 2012).

    The Agencies have evaluated this proposed rule under the Executive Order, the DOT Order, the FHWA Order, and the FTA Policy Guidance. The Agencies have determined that the proposed application regulations, if finalized, would not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. States participating in the Program must comply with DOT's and the appropriate Agency guidance and policies on environmental justice.

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The Agencies have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The Agencies certify that this action would not be an economically significant rule and would not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The Agencies do not anticipate that this action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    Agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for NEPA that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: those that normally require preparation of an EIS; those that normally require preparation of an EA; and those that are categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This proposed action qualifies for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20) (promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives) and 771.117(c)(1) (activities that do not lead directly to construction) for FHWA, and 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction) for FTA. In addition, FRA has determined that this proposed action is not a major FRA action requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment under FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999, as amended by 78 FR 2713, Jan. 14, 2013). The Agencies have evaluated whether the proposed action would involve unusual or extraordinary circumstances and have determined that this proposed action would not involve such circumstances.

    Under the Program, a selected State may conduct environmental reviews and make approvals for projects under State environmental laws and regulations instead of NEPA. These State environmental laws and regulations must be at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. As a result, the Agencies find that this proposed rulemaking would not result in significant impacts on the human environment.

    Regulation Identifier Number

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned 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. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects 23 CFR Part 778

    Environmental protection, Eliminating duplication of environmental reviews pilot program, Highways and roads.

    23 CFR Part 773

    Environmental protection, Surface transportation project delivery program application requirements and termination, Highways and roads.

    49 CFR Part 264

    Environmental protection, Eliminating duplication of environmental reviews pilot program, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 622

    Environmental protection, Environmental impact and related procedures, Public transportation, Transit.

    Brandye L. Hendrickson, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. Heath Hall, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration. Jane Williams, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Agencies propose to amend 23 CFR chapter I and 49 CFR chapters II and VI as follows:

    Title 23—Highways PART 773—SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DELIVERY PROGRAM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND TERMINATION 1. The authority citation for part 773 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 315 and 327; 49 CFR 1.81(a)(4)-(6); 49 CFR 1.85.

    2. Amend § 773.117 by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

    (a) * * *

    (2) The Operating Administration(s) may not terminate a State's participation without providing the State with notification of the noncompliance issue that could give rise to the termination, and without affording the State an opportunity to take corrective action to address the noncompliance issue. The Operating Administration(s) must provide the State a period of no less than 120 days to take corrective actions. The Operating Administration(s) is responsible for making the final decision on whether the corrective action is satisfactory.

    (3) On the request of the Governor of the State, the Operating Administration(s) shall provide a detailed description of each responsibility in need of corrective action regarding an inadequacy identified by the Operating Administration(s).

    3. Add part 778 to read as follows: PART 778—PILOT PROGRAM FOR ELIMINATING DUPLICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS Sec. 778.101 Purpose. 778.103 Eligibility and Certain Limitations. 778.105 Application requirements for participation in the program. 778.107 Application review and approval. 778.109 Criteria for Determining Stringency. 778.111 Review and Termination. Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 330; 49 CFR 1.81.

    § 778.101 Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to establish the requirements for a State to participate in the pilot program for eliminating duplication of environmental reviews (“Program”) under 23 U.S.C. 330. This Program allows States to conduct environmental reviews and make approvals for projects under State environmental laws and regulations instead of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    § 778.103 Eligibility and Certain Limitations.

    (a) Applicants. To be eligible for the Program, a State must:

    (1) Act by and through the Governor or top-ranking State transportation official who is charged with responsibility for highway construction;

    (2) Expressly consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts for compliance, discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility under this Program;

    (3) Have previously assumed the responsibilities of the Secretary under 23 U.S.C. 327 related to environmental review, consultation, or other actions required under certain Federal environmental laws; and

    (4) Identify laws authorizing the State to take the actions necessary to carry out the equivalent environmental review and approval procedures under State laws and regulations.

    (b) Certain Limitations. (1) State environmental laws and regulations may only be substituted as a means of complying with:

    (i) NEPA;

    (ii) Procedures governing the implementation of NEPA and related procedural laws under the authority of the Secretary, including 23 U.S.C. 109, 128, and 139; and

    (iii) Related regulations and Executive Orders.

    (2) Compliance with State environmental laws and regulations may not serve as a substitute for the Secretary's responsibilities regarding compliance with any other Federal environmental laws.

    § 778.105 Application requirements for participation in the Program.

    (a) To apply to participate in the Program, a State must submit an application to the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, or Federal Transit Administration, as appropriate.

    (b) Each application submitted must contain the following information:

    (1) A full and complete description of the alternative environmental review and approval procedures the State proposes, including:

    (i) The procedures the State uses to engage the public and consider alternatives to the proposed action; and

    (ii) The extent to which the State considers environmental consequences or impacts on resources potentially impacted by the proposed actions (such as air, water, or species).

    (2) Each Federal environmental requirement the State is seeking to substitute, within the limitations of § 778.103(b);

    (3) Each State environmental law and regulation the State intends to substitute for a Federal environmental requirement, within the limitations of § 778.103(b);

    (4) A detailed explanation (with supporting documentation incorporated by reference) of the basis for concluding the State environmental law or regulation intended to substitute for a Federal environmental requirement is at least as stringent as that Federal requirement;

    (5) A description of the projects or classes of projects for which the State anticipates exercising the authority that may be granted under the Program;

    (6) Verification that the State has the financial and personnel resources necessary to fulfill its obligations under the Program;

    (7) Evidence that the State has sought public comments on its application prior to the submittal and the State's response to any comments it received;

    (8) A point of contact for questions regarding the application and a point of contact regarding potential implementation of the Program (if different);

    (9) Certification and explanation by the State's Attorney General or other State official legally empowered by State law to issue legal opinions that bind the State that the State has legal authority to enter into the Program, and that the State consents to exclusive Federal court jurisdiction for the compliance, discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility under this Program;

    (10) Certification by the State's Attorney General or other State official legally empowered by State law to issue legal opinions that bind the State that the State has laws that are comparable to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA), including laws that allow for any decision regarding the public availability of a document under those laws to be reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction; and

    (11) The State Governor's (or in the case of the District of Columbia, the Mayor's) or the State's top ranking transportation official's signature approving the application.

    § 778.107 Application review and approval.

    (a) The Operating Administration must solicit public comments on the application and must consider comments received before making a decision to approve or disapprove the application. Materials made available for this public review must include the State's application and may include additional supporting materials.

    (b) After receiving an application Operating Administration deems complete, the Operating Administration must make a decision on whether to approve or disapprove the application within 120 calendar days. The Operating Administration must transmit the decision in writing to the State with a statement explaining the decision.

    (c) The Operating Administration will approve an application only if it determines the following conditions are satisfied:

    (1) The State is party to an agreement with the Operating Administration under 23 U.S.C. 327;

    (2) The Operating Administration has determined, after considering any public comments received, the State has the capacity, including financial and personnel, to undertake the alternative environmental review and approval procedures; and

    (3) The Operating Administration, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary with the concurrence of the Chair of CEQ, and after considering public comments received, has determined that the State environmental laws and regulations described in the State's application are at least as stringent as the Federal requirements for which they substitute.

    (d) The State must enter into a written agreement with the Operating Administration.

    (e) The written agreement must:

    (1) Be executed by the Governor or top-ranking transportation official in the State charged with responsibility for highway construction;

    (2) Provide that the State agrees to assume the responsibilities of the Program, as identified by the Operating Administration;

    (3) Provide that the State expressly consents to accept Federal court jurisdiction for the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of any responsibility undertaken as part of the Program;

    (4) Certify that State laws and regulations exist that authorize the State to carry out the responsibilities of the Program;

    (5) Certify that State laws and regulations exist that are comparable to FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552), including a provision that any decision regarding the public availability of a document under the State laws and regulations is reviewable by a court of competent jurisdiction;

    (6) Contain a commitment that the State will maintain the personnel and financial resources necessary to carry out its responsibilities under the Program;

    (7) Have a term of not more than 5 years, the term of a State's agreement with the Operating Administration in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327, or a term ending on December 4, 2027, whichever is sooner; and

    (8) Be renewable.

    (f) The State must execute the agreement before the Operating Administration executes the agreement and approves the application. The Operating Administration's execution of the agreement will constitute approval of the application.

    (g) The agreement may be renewed at the end of its term, but may not extend beyond December 4, 2027.

    (h) A State approved to participate in the Program may further apply the approved alternative environmental review and approval procedures to locally administered projects, for up to 25 local governments at the request of those local governments. For such locally administered projects, the State shall be responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the approved alternative State procedures are met.

    § 778.109 Criteria for Determining Stringency

    To be considered at least as stringent as a Federal requirement under this Program, the State laws and regulations, must, at a minimum:

    (a) Define the types of actions that normally require an environmental impact assessment, including government-sponsored projects such as those receiving Federal financial assistance or permit approvals. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 40 CFR 1508.18);

    (b) Ensure an early process for determining the scope of the action and issues that need to be addressed, identifying the significant issues, and for the classification of the appropriate environmental impact assessment in accordance with the significance of the likely impacts. For actions that may result in significant impacts on the human environment the scoping process should be an open and public process. (23 U.S.C. 139(e); 40 CFR 1501.3, 1501.4, 1501.7, 1507.3(b), 1508.14, and 1508.25);

    (c) Prohibit agencies and non-governmental proponents from taking action concerning the proposal until the environmental impact evaluation is complete when such action would:

    (1) Have adverse environmental impacts or

    (2) Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (40 CFR 1506.1 and 1506.10(b)).

    (d) Protect the integrity and objectivity of the analysis by requiring the agency to take responsibility for the scope and content of the analysis and by preventing conflicts of interest among the parties developing the analysis and the parties with financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D); 40 CFR 1506.5);

    (e) Based on a proposed action's purpose and need, require objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (including the alternative of not taking the action) if it may result in significant impacts to the human environment or, for those actions that may not result in significant impacts, consideration of alternatives if they will involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii); 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(E); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(A); 40 CFR 1502.13, 1502.14, and 1508.9);

    (f) Require an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a proposed action (and any reasonable alternatives) on the human environment, and a comparison of those potential impacts with existing environmental conditions (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 1502.16, 1508.9(b), and 1508.4);

    (g) Require the consideration of appropriate mitigation for the impacts associated with a proposal and reasonable alternatives (including avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating the impact over time, and compensating for the impact) (40 CFR 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h), and 1508.20);

    (h) Provide for adequate interagency participation, including appropriate coordination and consultation with State, Federal, tribal, and local agencies with jurisdiction by law, special expertise, or an interest with respect to any environmental impact associated with the proposal, and for collaboration that would eliminate duplication of reviews For actions that may result in significant impacts to the human environment, the process should allow for the development of plans for interagency coordination and public involvement, and the setting of timetables for the review process (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 139(d) and 139(g); 40 CFR 1500.5(e), 1501.6, 1502.25, and part 1503);

    (i) Provide an opportunity for public participation and comment that is commensurate with the significance of the proposal's impacts on the human environment, and require public access to the documentation developed during the environmental review and a process to respond to public comments (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(A); FAST Act, Sec. 1309(c)(2)(B)(ii); 40 CFR 1502.19, part 1503, and 1506.6; and E.O. 11514, Sec. 1(b));

    (j) Include procedures for the elevation and resolution of interagency disputes prior to a final decision on the proposed project (23 U.S.C. 139(h); 40 CFR part 1504);

    (k) Require, for the conclusion of the process, a concise documentation of findings (for actions that would not likely result in significant impacts to the human environment) or, for actions that may result in significant impacts, a concise record that states the agency decision that:

    (i) Identifies all alternatives considered (specifying which were environmentally preferable),

    (ii) Identifies and discusses all factors that were balanced by the agency in making its decision and states how those considerations entered into the decision,

    (iii) States whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not, why they were not; and

    (iv) Describes the monitoring and enforcement program that will be adopted where applicable for any mitigation (40 CFR 1501.4 and 1505.2).

    (l) Require the agency to supplement environmental impact assessments if there are substantial changes in the proposal that are relevant to environmental concerns or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. (23 U.S.C. 330(e)(3); 40 CFR 1502.9); and

    (m) Allow for the use of procedures that facilitate process efficiency such as the identification of categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment and which have been found to not have such effect with procedures that require the consideration of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a higher level of analysis, the use of tiering, programmatic approaches, adoption, incorporation by reference, approaches to eliminate duplication with other Federal requirements, and special procedures to address emergency situations (23 U.S.C. 139(b)(3); 40 CFR 1502.20, 1502.21, 1502.25, 1506.2, 1506.3, 1506.4, 1507.3(b)(ii), and 1508.4).

    § 778.111 Review and Termination

    (a) In General. The Program shall terminate December 4, 2027.

    (b) Review. The Operating Administration must review each participating State's performance in implementing the requirements of the Program at least once every 5 years.

    (1) The Operating Administration must provide notice and an opportunity for public comment during the review.

    (2) At the conclusion of its last review prior to the expiration of the term, the Operating Administration may extend a State's participation in the Program for an additional term of not more than 5 years (as long as such term does not extend beyond the termination date of the Program) or terminate the State's participation in the Program.

    (c) Early Termination. (1) If the Operating Administration, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary and the Chair of CEQ, determines that a State is not administering the Program consistent with the terms of its written agreement, or the requirements of this part or 23 U.S.C. 330, the Operating Administration must provide the State notification of that determination.

    (2) After notifying the State of its determination under paragraph (c)(1), the Operating Administration must provide the State a maximum of 90 days to take the appropriate corrective action. If the State fails to take such corrective action, the Operating Administration may terminate the State's participation in the Program.

    Title 49—Transportation
    PART 264—PROGRAM FOR ELIMINATING DUPLICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DELIVERY PROGRAM 4. The authority citation for part 264 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 327; 49 CFR 1.81; 23 U.S.C. 330.

    5. Revise the heading for part 264 to read as set forth above. 6. Revise § 264.101 to read as follows:
    § 264.101 Procedures for complying with the surface transportation project delivery program application requirements and termination and the procedures for participating in and complying with the program for eliminating duplication of environmental reviews.

    The procedures for complying with the surface transportation project delivery program application requirements and termination are set forth in part 773 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The procedures for participating in and complying with the program for eliminating duplication of environmental reviews are set forth in part 778 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

    PART 622—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND RELATED PROCEDURES 7. The authority citation for part 622 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 303 and 5323(q); 23 U.S.C. 139, 326, 327, and 330; Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, sections 6002 and 6010; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 49 CFR 1.81; Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, sections 1315, 1316, 1317, and 1318; and Pub. L. 114-94, section 1309.

    8. Revise § 622.101 to read as follows:
    § 622.101 Cross-reference to procedures.

    The procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and related statutes, regulations, and orders are set forth in part 771 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The procedures for complying with 49 U.S.C. 303, commonly known as “Section 4(f),” are set forth in part 774 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The procedures for complying with the surface transportation project delivery program application requirements and termination are set forth in part 773 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The procedures for participating and complying with the program for eliminating duplication of environmental reviews are set forth in part 778 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

    [FR Doc. 2017-20561 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 25 CFR Part 547 RIN 3141-AA64 Technical Standards AGENCY:

    National Indian Gaming Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Indian Gaming Commission proposes to amend the minimum technical standards for Class II gaming systems and equipment. The proposed rule would amend regulations that describe how tribal governments, tribal gaming regulatory authorities, and tribal gaming operations comply with the technical standards. In particular, the proposed rule amends the requirement that gaming systems manufactured before November 10, 2008, be modified to meet standards applicable to gaming systems manufactured on or after November 10, 2008, or be removed from the gaming floor by November 10, 2018. The Commission proposes this action to assist tribal governments, tribal gaming regulatory authorities, and operations in ensuring the integrity and security of Class II games and gaming revenue through minimum technical standards for Class II gaming systems and equipment.

    DATES:

    The agency must receive comments on or before November 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 202-632-7066.

    Mail: National Indian Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW., MS 1621, Washington, DC 20240.

    Hand Delivery: National Indian Gaming Commission, 90 K Street NE., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Austin Badger, National Indian Gaming Commission; Telephone: 202-632-7003.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. 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.

    II. Background

    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act establishes the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) and sets out a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. On October 8, 2008, the NIGC published a final rule in the Federal Register called Technical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids Used in the Play of Class II Games. 73 FR 60508. The rule added a new part to the NIGC's regulations establishing a process for ensuring the integrity of electronic Class II games and aids. The standards were designed to assist tribal gaming regulatory authorities and operators with ensuring the integrity and security of Class II gaming, the accountability of Class II gaming revenue, and provide guidance to equipment manufacturers and distributors of Class II gaming systems. The standards do not classify which games are class II and which games are class III.

    When implemented in 2008, the part 547 technical standards introduced several new requirements for Class II gaming systems designed to protect the security and integrity of Class II gaming systems and tribal operations. The Commission understood, however, that some existing Class II gaming systems might not meet all of the requirements of the technical standards. Therefore, to avoid any potentially significant economic and practical consequences of requiring immediate compliance, the Commission implemented a five year sunset provision which allowed eligible gaming systems manufactured before November 10, 2008 (2008 Systems) to remain on the gaming floor. The Commission believed that a five year period was sufficient for market forces to move equipment toward compliance with the standards applicable to gaming systems manufactured on or after November 10, 2008.

    On September 21, 2012, the NIGC published a final rule in the Federal Register which included an amendment delaying the sunset provision by an additional five years. 77 FR 58473. The Commission recognized that its prior analysis regarding the continued economic viability of the 2008 Systems had proven to be mistaken. The NIGC established the initial five year period in the midst of a much stronger economy. In the time that followed the economic downturn, many tribal gaming operations set new priorities that required keeping a 2008 System on the gaming floor for a longer period of time. Balancing the economic needs against a risk that potentially increases as technology advances and 2008 Systems remain static, the Commission determined that 2008 Systems could continue to be offered for play until November 10, 2018.

    Now, with the November 10, 2018, sunset approaching, the Commission believed it appropriate to include the 2008 Systems and associated sunset provision of the part 547 technical standards as a topic for consultation. The topic was therefore included in a November 22, 2016, letter to tribal leaders introducing the Commission's 2017 consultation series.

    III. Development of the Proposed Rule

    On March 23, 2017, in Tulsa, OK, and April 12, 2017, in San Diego, CA, the NIGC consulted on the 2008 Systems and associated sunset provision of part 547. The Commission also solicited written comments through May 31, 2017. In addition, NIGC staff attended several National Indian Gaming Association Class II Subcommittee meetings. The consultations and meetings, combined with the written comments, proved invaluable in the development of a discussion draft. On June 14, 2017, the Commission issued a discussion draft which, among other proposed amendments, proposed removing the November 10, 2018, sunset for 2008 Systems. Additional written comments responsive to the discussion draft were solicited through July 15, 2017.

    Written comments received after the issuance of the discussion draft were generally supportive of the proposed removal of the November 10, 2018, sunset for 2008 Systems. Comments also indicated, however, several specific remaining areas of concern. The Commission developed the proposed rule after considering the comments received.

    A. General Comments

    Some commenters questioned the Commission's authority to implement technical standards and its authority to enforce the standards. IGRA gives the Commission the authority to adopt these technical standards. Congress was expressly concerned that gaming under IGRA be “conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players” and “to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation.” 25 U.S.C. 2702(2). The technical standards are designed to ensure that these concerns are addressed. These standards implement the authority granted the NIGC to monitor, inspect, and examine Class II gaming, 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1)-(4), and to promulgate such regulations as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10). The Commission further reiterates that this rule does not classify games for purposes of IGRA. The rule assumes that the games played are Class II games. This rule establishes a process for ensuring the integrity and security of Class II games and an accounting of Class II revenue.

    B. 2008 Systems, Pre-Discussion Draft

    Many commenters requested that the November 10, 2018, sunset for 2008 Systems be removed. Commenters suggested that the existing sunset provision could not be justified because there has been no evidence that 2008 Systems represent a risk to the integrity and security of Class II gaming. Commenters noted that 2008 Systems appear to be protected by 26 out of 28 technical standards identified by commenters as “high risk.” In addition, commenters suggested that, even assuming additional risks are associated with 2008 Systems, such risks are mitigated by tribal gaming regulatory authorities (TGRAs) through internal control standards.

    The Commission agrees that the 2008 sunset can be removed. The Commission disagrees, however, that evidence of risk forms the sole legal justification for the technical standards. The technical standards are intended to ensure the integrity and security of Class II gaming and the accountability of Class II gaming revenue. The technical standards include minimum requirements that the Commission believes, in its judgment, are appropriate and consistent with its Federal regulatory oversight mission. The Commission has, however, determined that removal of the sunset provision is justified provided that 2008 Systems are subject to additional annual review by TGRAs.

    Commenters also suggested that the sunset provision threatens significant economic harm and the continued success and viability of the Class II gaming industry. Commenters suggested that the sunset provision is an unnecessary cost burden on manufacturers and tribes. Commenters further suggested that the sunset provision will cause tribes to lose leverage in compact negotiations with states.

    The Commission understands the commenters' concerns over the economic impact of removing non-compliant Class II gaming systems from the gaming floor. The Commission notes, however, that part 547 as originally enacted and as amended only requires removal if the games are not made compliant with the testing standards for newer systems set forth in the regulation. The regulation initially provided the industry with five years to modify or replace 2008 Systems. The Commission subsequently granted an additional five years to bring the systems into compliance with the standards for newer systems. The Commission has now determined that removal of the sunset provision is justified provided that 2008 Systems are subject to additional annual review by the TGRA.

    Commenters suggested that the sunset provision is retroactive and that IGRA does not authorize the NIGC to promulgate regulations that have retroactive effect. The Commission disagrees that the proposed amendments are retroactive. The proposed amendments do not alter the legal consequences of actions completed before their effective date.

    A commenter suggested extending the sunset provision indefinitely, subject to the authority of TGRAs. A commenter submitted proposed language implementing an annual audit requirement for 2008 Systems. The Commission's subsequent discussion draft partially incorporated this recommendation.

    C. 2008 Systems, Post-Discussion Draft

    The discussion draft required TGRAs to: “Annually review the Class II gaming system, its current components, and the associated testing laboratory reports to determine whether the Class II gaming system may be approved pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. The TGRA shall make a finding identifying the Class II gaming systems reviewed, the Class II gaming systems subsequently approved pursuant to paragraph (b), and, for Class II gaming systems that cannot be approved pursuant to paragraph (b), the modifications necessary for such approval. The TGRA shall transmit its findings to the Commission within 120 days of the gaming operation's fiscal year end.” Commenters suggested that the NIGC has provided no compelling reason to change the existing reporting requirements. Commenters further suggested that the annual reporting requirement appears to be unintentionally applicable to all Class II gaming systems.

    Although the requirement does impose an additional requirement on TGRAs, the Commission believes that removal of the sunset provision warrants annual review specific to 2008 Systems. In addition, the annual reporting requirement is contained within § 547.5(a) and is therefore applicable only to 2008 Systems. The Commission has, however, revised and clarified the annual review and reporting procedures in the proposed rule to reduce the perceived burden on TGRAs. Pursuant to this proposed rule, TGRAs are not required to transmit its findings, but rather must maintain records and make them available to NIGC staff upon request.

    The discussion draft further provided that “A TGRA may not permit the use of any Class II gaming system manufactured before November 10, 2008 in a tribal gaming operation unless:” it meets requirements applicable to 2008 Systems. Discussion Draft § 547.5(a)(3) provides that “If the Class II gaming system is subsequently approved pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, this paragraph (a) [2008 Systems] no longer applies.” Commenters suggested that the Discussion Draft could be misinterpreted to provide that all Class II gaming systems manufactured prior to November 10, 2008, including those that are now compliant with § 547.5(b), would be subject to the 2008 System provisions in § 547.5(a). Commenters further suggested that approving a 2008 System pursuant to § 547.5(b) requires a 2008 System to be resubmitted to a testing lab for full re-certification and/or requires TGRAs to make technical determinations.

    The Commission believes that discussion draft § 547.5(a)(3) is clear that Class II gaming systems approved pursuant to § 547.5(b) are no longer 2008 Systems. The Commission has, however, clarified in the proposed rule that the use of the term “approved” is intended to reference TGRA approval based on review of existing testing lab reports for all current components of the Class II gaming system.

    Finally, the discussion draft Discussion Draft § 547.5(a)(1)(viii) provides that “All player interfaces of the Class II gaming system have a date of manufacture before November 10, 2008.” Commenters suggested that the requirement that all player interfaces of 2008 Systems have a date of manufacture before November 10, 2008, was a new requirement. Commenters further suggested that this requirement was unnecessary and would prevent use of newer player interfaces with 2008 Systems, contrary to provisions encouraging 2008 Systems to be modified to move towards compliance with standards for newer systems.

    Although not included in the 2012 amendment to part 547, the date of manufacture requirement is not entirely new. The 2008 System provisions were originally intended to apply only to systems in play or manufactured by November 10, 2008. 73 FR 60508, 60510. Pursuant to the 2008 regulations, § 547.4(a)(7) required “the supplier of any player interface to designate with a permanently affixed label each player interface with an identifying number and the date of manufacture or a statement that the date of manufacture was on or before the effective date of this part. The tribal gaming regulatory authority shall also require the supplier to provide a written declaration or affidavit affirming that the date of manufacture was on or before November 10, 2008.” 73 FR 60508, 60527 (October 10, 2008). The Commission agrees, however, that the date of manufacture requirement included in the discussion draft could be interpreted as preventing the use of newer player interfaces and has therefore removed the requirement from the proposed rule.

    D. Class II Gaming System Component Repair, Replacement, or Modification

    Discussion draft § 547.5(c)(2)(ii) provided that “The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by: (A) This part; (B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and (C) The TGRA.” Commenters suggested that the new requirement that modifications to 2008 Systems be tested to the standards applicable to newer systems is unnecessary and will only result in additional costs with no practical benefit. Commenters noted that laboratory reports are currently not required for all modifications to 2008 Systems, thereby providing TGRAs with greater flexibility and control over such modifications. Commenters suggested that this provision will force TGRAs to use the emergency modification procedures to avoid testing delays.

    The Commission disagrees that the requirement that all modifications be tested to the standards applicable to newer systems is unnecessary. The current and proposed regulations require the TGRA to determine, among other requirements, whether a modification will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's compliance with the technical standards. The new requirement ensures that TGRAs are provided with the information needed for the TGRA to make such a determination. In addition, the Commission believes that TGRAs will continue to utilize the emergency modification provisions for their intended purpose.

    E. Records

    Discussion draft § 547.5(g) provided that “The Commission may use the information derived therefrom for any lawful purpose including, without limitation, to monitor the use of Class II gaming systems, to assess the effectiveness of the standards required by this Part, and to inform future amendments to this Part. The Commission will only make available for public review records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).” Commenters expressed reluctance to expose sensitive testing and compliance records to possible public disclosure. Commenters suggested that records only be available for review on site by NIGC staff.

    The Commission agrees that sensitive testing and compliance records should not be disclosed. As cited in the discussion draft, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a) states that “the Commission shall preserve any and all information received pursuant to this chapter as confidential pursuant to” the confidential commercial or financial information and law enforcement information exceptions of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commission is therefore precluded from releasing such information.

    Regulatory Matters Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Moreover, Indian Tribes are not considered to be small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions. Nor will the proposed rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.

    Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

    The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).

    Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB Control Number 3141- 0007, which expired in August of 2011. The NIGC is in the process of reinstating that Control Number.

    List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 547

    Gambling, Indian—lands, Indian—tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, for reasons stated in the preamble, 25 CFR part 547 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 547—MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR CLASS II GAMING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT 1. The authority citation for part 547 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2706(b).

    2. Revise § 547.5 to read as follows:
    § 547.5 How does a tribal government, TGRA, or tribal gaming operation comply with this part?

    (a) Gaming systems manufactured before November 10, 2008. (1) Any Class II gaming system manufactured before November 10, 2008, that is not compliant with paragraph (b) of this section may be made available for use at any tribal gaming operation if:

    (i) The Class II gaming system software that affects the play of the Class II game, together with the signature verification required by § 547.8(f) was submitted to a testing laboratory within 120 days after November 10, 2008, or October 22, 2012;

    (ii) The testing laboratory tested the submission to the standards established by § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), and § 547.14;

    (iii) The testing laboratory provided the TGRA with a formal written report setting forth and certifying to the findings and conclusions of the test;

    (iv) The TGRA made a finding, in the form of a certificate provided to the supplier or manufacturer of the Class II gaming system, that the Class II gaming system is compliant with § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), and § 547.14;

    (v) The Class II gaming system is only used as approved by the TGRA and the TGRA transmitted its notice of that approval, identifying the Class II gaming system and its components, to the Commission;

    (vi) Remote communications with the Class II gaming system are only allowed if authorized by the TGRA; and

    (vii) Player interfaces of the Class II gaming system exhibit information consistent with § 547.7(d) and any other information required by the TGRA.

    (2) For so long as a Class II gaming system is made available for use at any tribal gaming operation pursuant to this paragraph (a) the TGRA shall:

    (i) Retain copies of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA's compliance certificate, and the TGRA's approval of the use of the Class II gaming system;

    (ii) Maintain records identifying the Class II gaming system and its current components; and

    (iii) Annually review the testing laboratory reports associated with the Class II gaming system and its current components to determine whether the Class II gaming system may be approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section. The TGRA shall make a finding identifying the Class II gaming systems reviewed, the Class II gaming systems subsequently approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v), and, for Class II gaming systems that cannot be approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v), the components of the Class II gaming system preventing such approval.

    (3) If the Class II gaming system is subsequently approved by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v) as compliant with paragraph (b) of this section, this paragraph (a) no longer applies.

    (b) Gaming system submission, testing, and approval—generally. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a TGRA may not permit the use of any Class II gaming system in a tribal gaming operation unless:

    (i) The Class II gaming system has been submitted to a testing laboratory;

    (ii) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by:

    (A) This part;

    (B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and

    (C) The TGRA;

    (iii) The testing laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the submission, setting forth and certifying its findings and conclusions, and noting compliance with any standard established by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section;

    (iv) The testing laboratory's written report confirms that the operation of a player interface prototype has been certified that it will not be compromised or affected by electrostatic discharge, liquid spills, electromagnetic interference, or any other tests required by the TGRA;

    (v) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA makes a finding that the Class II gaming system conforms to the standards established by:

    (A) This part;

    (B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and

    (C) The TGRA.

    (2) For so long as a Class II gaming system is made available for use at any tribal gaming operation pursuant to this paragraph (b) the TGRA shall:

    (i) Retain a copy of the testing laboratory's report; and

    (ii) Maintain records identifying the Class II gaming system and its current components.

    (c) Class II gaming system component repair, replacement, or modification. (1) As permitted by the TGRA, individual hardware or software components of a Class II gaming system may be repaired or replaced to ensure proper functioning, security, or integrity of the Class II gaming system.

    (2) A TGRA may not permit the modification of any Class II gaming system in a tribal gaming operation unless:

    (i) The Class II gaming system modification has been submitted to a testing laboratory;

    (ii) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by:

    (A) This part;

    (B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and

    (C) The TGRA;

    (iii) The testing laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the submission, setting forth and certifying its findings and conclusions, and noting compliance with any standard established by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C) of this section;

    (iv) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA makes a finding that the:

    (A) The modification will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's compliance with this part and any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter; and

    (B) The modification will not detract from, compromise or prejudice the proper functioning, security, or integrity of the Class II gaming system;

    (3) If a TGRA authorizes a component modification under this paragraph, it must maintain a record of the modification and a copy of the testing laboratory report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play.

    (d) Emergency Class II gaming system component modifications. (1) A TGRA, in its discretion, may permit the modification of previously approved components to be made available for play without prior laboratory testing or review if the modified hardware or software is:

    (i) Necessary to correct a problem affecting the fairness, security, or integrity of a game or accounting system or any cashless system, or voucher system; or

    (ii) Unrelated to game play, an accounting system, a cashless system, or a voucher system.

    (2) If a TGRA authorizes modified components to be made available for play or use without prior testing laboratory review, the TGRA must thereafter require the hardware or software manufacturer to:

    (i) Immediately advise other users of the same components of the importance and availability of the update;

    (ii) Immediately submit the new or modified components to a testing laboratory for testing and verification of compliance with this part and any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and

    (iii) Immediately provide the TGRA with a software signature verification tool meeting the requirements of § 547.8(f) for any new or modified software component.

    (3) If a TGRA authorizes a component modification under this paragraph, it must maintain a record of the modification and a copy of the testing laboratory report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play.

    (e) Compliance by charitable gaming operations. This part does not apply to charitable gaming operations, provided that:

    (1) The tribal government determines that the organization sponsoring the gaming operation is a charitable organization;

    (2) All proceeds of the charitable gaming operation are for the benefit of the charitable organization;

    (3) The TGRA permits the charitable organization to be exempt from this part;

    (4) The charitable gaming operation is operated wholly by the charitable organization's employees or volunteers; and

    (5) The annual gross gaming revenue of the charitable gaming operation does not exceed $3,000,000.

    (f) Testing laboratories. (1) A testing laboratory may provide the examination, testing, evaluating and reporting functions required by this section provided that:

    (i) It demonstrates its integrity, independence and financial stability to the TGRA.

    (ii) It demonstrates its technical skill and capability to the TGRA.

    (iii) If the testing laboratory is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, a tribe, it must be independent from the manufacturer and gaming operator for whom it is providing the testing, evaluating, and reporting functions required by this section.

    (iv) The TGRA:

    (A) Makes a suitability determination of the testing laboratory based upon standards no less stringent than those set out in § 533.6(b)(1)(ii) through (v) of this chapter and based upon no less information than that required by § 537.1 of this chapter, or

    (B) Accepts, in its discretion, a determination of suitability for the testing laboratory made by any other gaming regulatory authority in the United States.

    (v) After reviewing the suitability determination and the information provided by the testing laboratory, the TGRA determines that the testing laboratory is qualified to test and evaluate Class II gaming systems.

    (2) The TGRA must:

    (i) Maintain a record of all determinations made pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section for a minimum of three years.

    (ii) Place the testing laboratory under a continuing obligation to notify it of any adverse regulatory action in any jurisdiction where the testing laboratory conducts business.

    (iii) Require the testing laboratory to provide notice of any material changes to the information provided to the TGRA.

    (g) Records. Records required to be maintained under this section must be made available to the Commission upon request. The Commission may use the information derived therefrom for any lawful purpose including, without limitation, to monitor the use of Class II gaming systems, to assess the effectiveness of the standards required by this part, and to inform future amendments to this part. The Commission will only make available for public review records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).

    Dated: September 19, 2017. Jonodev O. Chaudhuri, Chairman. Kathryn Isom-Clause, Vice Chair. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Associate Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20635 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 5f [REG-128841-07] RIN 1545-BG91 Public Approval of Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bonds AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations to update and streamline the public approval requirement provided in section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code applicable to tax-exempt private activity bonds issued by State and local governments. The proposed regulations would update the existing regulations on the public approval requirement to reflect statutory changes, to streamline the public approval process, and to reduce burden on State and local governments that issue tax-exempt private activity bonds. This document also withdraws two previous notices of proposed rulemaking on this topic. The proposed regulations affect State and local governments that issue tax-exempt private activity bonds.

    DATES:

    Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-128841-07), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-128841-07), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-128841-07).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Spence Hanemann at (202) 317-6980; concerning submissions of comments and requesting a hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under OMB Control Number 1545-2185 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). The collection of information in this proposed regulation is the requirement in § 1.147(f)-1 that certain information be contained in a public notice or public approval and, consequently, disclosed to the public. This information is required to meet the statutory public approval requirement provided in section 147(f). The likely respondents are the governmental units required to approve an issue of private activity bonds under section 147(f).

    Estimated total annual burden: 2,600 hours.

    Estimated average annual burden per respondent: 1.3 Hours.

    Estimated number of respondents: 2,000.

    Estimated frequency of responses: Annual.

    Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by November 27, 2017.

    Comments are specifically requested concerning:

    Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;

    How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;

    How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

    Background

    This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) and 26 CFR part 5f under section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (the 1954 Code). In the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Public Law 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, Congress added section 103(k) to the 1954 Code to impose a public approval requirement on tax-exempt industrial development bonds. On May 11, 1983, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published in the Federal Register (48 FR 21117) temporary regulations under section 103(k) of the 1954 Code (TD 7892) (the Existing Regulations). See § 5f.103-2. A notice of proposed rulemaking (LR-221-82) by cross-reference to the temporary regulations was published in the Federal Register (48 FR 21166) on the same day.

    In the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (1986 Tax Act), Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, Congress reorganized the tax-exempt bond provisions and carried forward the public approval requirement of section 103(k) of the 1954 Code in expanded form in section 147(f) of the Code. In section 147(f), Congress extended the public approval requirement to apply to all types of tax-exempt private activity bonds, as provided in section 141(e). The legislative history of the 1986 Tax Act indicates that “[t]he conferees intend that, to the extent not amended, all principles of present law continue to apply under the reorganized provisions.” H.R. Rep. No. 99-841, at II-686 (1986) (Conf. Rep.). Thus, the Existing Regulations in § 5f.103-2 remain in effect.

    On September 9, 2008, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-128841-07) in the Federal Register (73 FR 52220) that proposed regulations to amend and supplement the Existing Regulations (the 2008 Proposed Regulations). The Treasury Department and the IRS received public comments on the 2008 Proposed Regulations and held a public hearing on January 26, 2009. As discussed more fully in the Explanation of Provisions section of this preamble, the Treasury Department and the IRS have decided to withdraw the 2008 Proposed Regulations in full and to propose new regulations. This document contains those new proposed regulations (the Proposed Regulations).

    Explanation of Provisions 1. Introduction

    In general, pursuant to section 103 of the Code, interest received by investors on eligible State and local bonds is tax-exempt for Federal income tax purposes. Interest on private activity bonds qualifies for this tax-exempt treatment only if the bonds meet the requirements for “qualified bonds” as defined in section 141(e) and other applicable requirements provided in section 103. Section 141(e) of the Code requires, among other things, that qualified bonds meet the public approval requirement of section 147(f).

    The Proposed Regulations would update the Existing Regulations to address subsequent statutory changes and to streamline the public approval process. The Proposed Regulations provide greater flexibility to State and local governments with respect to the public approval process to reduce administrative burdens associated with the public approval requirement. The Proposed Regulations recognize advances in technology and electronic communication that may facilitate more streamlined procedures for providing reasonable public notice of a public hearing.

    2. The 2008 Proposed Regulations

    The 2008 Proposed Regulations proposed to update, clarify, and simplify discrete aspects of the Existing Regulations regarding the public approval requirement. The 2008 Proposed Regulations focused on the scope, information content, methods, and timing for the public approval process, and generally did not focus on the governmental entities from which public approval is required. Overall, the public comments on the 2008 Proposed Regulations were favorable.

    The Proposed Regulations generally incorporate the amendments proposed in the 2008 Proposed Regulations with modifications in response to the public comments. One comment focused on the structure of the 2008 Proposed Regulations. The 2008 Proposed Regulations would have revised the Existing Regulations by amending existing rules and adding new rules. The 2008 Proposed Regulations further provided that the Existing Regulations would remain in effect to the extent not inconsistent with the final version of the 2008 Proposed Regulations. Commenters expressed concern about potential confusion over two distinct and partially inconsistent regulation sections governing the public approval requirement. The Treasury Department and the IRS understand this concern. Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations consolidate the guidance in the Existing Regulations and the 2008 Proposed Regulations, with modifications in response to the public comments and other recent developments, into new proposed guidance and provide a further opportunity for public comment.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS also received numerous comments regarding the level of specificity of information required to be contained in reasonable public notice of a public hearing or a public approval. Generally, the 2008 Proposed Regulations proposed to allow the issuer to provide streamlined information about projects to be financed, and the Existing Regulations require a greater level of specificity of information about such projects. The 2008 Proposed Regulations also proposed to afford issuers more flexibility regarding the effect of post-issuance changes from the reasonably expected facts provided in the reasonable public notice or public approval. Commenters expressed differing views on whether these proposed amendments in the 2008 Proposed Regulations should be adopted. Commenters in favor of these amendments generally applauded the reduced burden that issuers would bear under the 2008 Proposed Regulations and suggested ways in which that burden could be reduced further. Commenters opposed to these amendments generally argued that reducing the amount of public information would limit the public's ability to approve or oppose on an informed basis new private activity bonds and proposed projects to be financed. The legislative history of the public approval requirement emphasizes the importance of “a reasonable opportunity for persons with differing views on both issuance of the bonds and the location and nature of the proposed facility to be heard.” S. Rep. No. 97-494, at 171 (1982). With respect to these proposed amendments, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the information that would have been required by the 2008 Proposed Regulations is sufficient to permit the public to evaluate the merits of both the issuance of the bonds and the location and nature of the financed facility. Thus, the burden imposed by the Existing Regulations may be reduced as provided in the 2008 Proposed Regulations without significantly impairing the public's consideration of new private activity bonds. Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations generally retain the streamlined information and post-issuance flexibility proposed in the 2008 Proposed Regulations and provide for additional post-issuance flexibility. (See section 6 of this Explanation of Provisions.)

    Commenters also provided differing views on the amendments in the 2008 Proposed Regulations that proposed changes to the procedures for providing reasonable public notice of a public hearing. The Existing Regulations generally permit an issuer to publicize notice by newspaper, radio, or television, and presume notice to be reasonable if published at least 14 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The 2008 Proposed Regulations proposed to expand the permitted methods of providing public notice to include notice by newspaper, radio, television, Web site, or other permitted methods of giving public notice under State law, and would have shortened the presumptively reasonable notice period to seven days in advance of the hearing. Commenters in favor of these amendments generally stated that the proposed amendments would ease the burden of providing the public notice. Commenters opposed to these amendments generally expressed concern that seven days' notice of a public hearing would not provide the public sufficient time to make an informed decision and to make arrangements to be present at the hearing. The legislative history of TEFRA indicates that Congress expected notice to be published no fewer than 14 days before the scheduled date of the hearing. See S. Rep. No. 97-494, at 171 (1982). In response to these comments, the Proposed Regulations adopt and expand the permitted methods for giving notice of a public hearing that were proposed in the 2008 Proposed Regulations, but retain the 14-day notice period presumed reasonable under the Existing Regulations consistent with the expectations of Congress.

    3. Host Approval and Issuer Approval

    Section 147(f) generally requires that both the governmental unit that issues the bonds (or on behalf of which the bonds are issued) and a governmental unit with jurisdiction over the location of the financed project approve an issue of private activity bonds (and the approvals are referred to as the issuer approval and the host approval, respectively). The Proposed Regulations generally carry forward the rules on issuer approval and host approval from the Existing Regulations, with limited revisions to address statutory changes that affect the application of these rules to certain types of private activity bonds. Thus, for example, the Proposed Regulations include guidance to address subsequent statutory changes in section 147(f)(3) and (4) that added special provisions regarding the issuer approval and host approval requirements for certain financings involving airports, high-speed rail facilities, qualified scholarship funding corporations, and volunteer fire departments.

    The 1986 Tax Act extended the public approval requirement beyond the traditional, facility-focused industrial development bonds subject to the requirement under the 1954 Code to include certain special types of financings that are not facility-specific, including “qualified mortgage bonds” as defined in section 143(a), “qualified veterans' mortgage bonds” as defined in section 143(b), “qualified student loan bonds” as defined in section 144(b), and “qualified 501(c)(3) bonds” as defined in section 145. For these types of bonds, obtaining a host approval may be impractical or unworkable. For example, for qualified mortgage bonds, the locations of many of the homes to be financed with qualified mortgage loans generally are unknown at the time of issuance of the bonds and thus it may be difficult to identify appropriate governmental units to provide host approval. Moreover, for qualified student loan bonds and for qualified 501(c)(3) bonds used to finance working capital expenditures, the application of the host approval requirement is unworkable because the assets and expenditures financed have no physical location. In recognition of the practical difficulties faced by issuers of these types of bonds under the Existing Regulations, the Proposed Regulations provide that no host approval is necessary for mortgage revenue bonds (defined as qualified mortgage bonds, qualified veterans' mortgage bonds, and certain refundings of bonds issued to finance mortgages of owner-occupied residences under the law prior to enactment of section 143), qualified student loan bonds, or qualified 501(c)(3) bonds used to finance working capital expenditures.

    4. Reasonable Public Notice and Public Hearing

    The Existing Regulations generally provide that an applicable elected representative of the approving governmental unit may approve an issue following a public hearing for which there was reasonable public notice. The Existing Regulations provide guidance on permitted methods for giving reasonable public notice and holding public hearings. The Proposed Regulations would expand these methods to provide greater flexibility to State and local governments for providing reasonable public notice.

    The Existing Regulations provide generally that reasonable public notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation available to residents of the relevant locality or announced by radio or television broadcast to those residents. The Proposed Regulations would expand the permitted methods of providing reasonable public notice to provide greater flexibility and to recognize advances in technology and electronic communications. Thus, the Proposed Regulations would allow reasonable public notice by newspaper publication, radio or television broadcast, postings on a governmental unit's public Web site, or alternative methods permitted under a general State law for public notices for public hearings of a governmental unit. The Treasury Department and the IRS solicit comment on other possible methods of providing reasonable public notice to foster flexibility and to reduce administrative burdens.

    5. Content of Reasonable Public Notice and Public Approval A. General Rules for Content of Reasonable Public Notice and Public Approval

    The Existing Regulations generally require that the reasonable public notice and the public approval contain the following information: A general, functional description of the type and use of the facility to be financed; the maximum aggregate face amount of the bonds to be issued for the facility; the initial owner, operator, or manager of the facility; and the location of the facility by street address or, if none, by a general description designed to inform readers of the specific location. The required level of specificity of information for the public approval process under the Existing Regulations has proven to be unduly limiting and burdensome in certain respects. The Proposed Regulations generally retain the requirements that information (public approval information) be provided for the public approval process but refine the required public approval information to reduce burden and enhance flexibility.

    Initially, the Existing Regulations focus on an individual “facility” as the unit of financed property for which the issuer must provide the relevant information. The definition of “facility” in the Existing Regulations includes facilities on multiple tracts of land only if the facilities are used in an integrated operation. Whether facilities are part of an “integrated operation” has proven difficult to determine.

    The Proposed Regulations use the term “project” in lieu of the term “facility” because “project” more clearly indicates that financed property may consist of multiple buildings and multiple sites. The Proposed Regulations define the term “project” generally to mean one or more capital projects or facilities, including land, buildings, equipment, and other property, to be financed with an issue, that are located on the same site, or adjacent or proximate sites used for similar purposes. In addition, to address certain special types of loan financings, the definition of a project under the Proposed Regulations also includes mortgage loans financed by mortgage revenue bonds, student loans financed by qualified student loan bonds, and working capital expenditures financed by qualified 501(c)(3) bonds.

    The Proposed Regulations would continue to require a general functional description of the type and use of the financed project. The Proposed Regulations, however, would mitigate the required level of specificity of that information. Thus, the Proposed Regulations would allow an issuer of exempt facility bonds to satisfy this requirement through a statement that identifies the category of exempt facility bond (for example, bonds financing an airport or a mass commuting facility). Similarly, an issuer of other types of private activity bonds may satisfy this requirement through a statement that identifies the type of bonds and the type and use of the project (for example, qualified small issue bonds for a manufacturing facility).

    The Proposed Regulations would continue to require that the public approval information include the name of the expected initial owner or the principal user of the project. The Proposed Regulations, however, would permit an issuer to name the true beneficial party of interest as an alternative to naming a legal owner or user (for example, the name of a nonprofit hospital organization instead of a limited liability company that serves as the legal owner of a hospital).

    The Proposed Regulations would continue to require that the public approval information include the location of the project by street address. The Proposed Regulations, however, would clarify that a description by boundary streets or other geographic boundaries suffices to meet this location requirement. The Proposed Regulations would allow a consolidated description of the location of a project on the same site or on adjacent or proximate sites (for example, a college campus).

    B. Special Rules for Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Qualified Student Loan Bonds, and Certain Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds

    The 1986 Tax Act extended the public approval requirement to mortgage revenue bonds, qualified student loan bonds, and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. The Existing Regulations were promulgated before the 1986 Tax Act and thus provide no guidance tailored to the application of the public approval requirement to these types of bonds. In the General Explanation of the 1986 Tax Act, the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation stated that, “[i]n extending this requirement to all private activity bonds, Congress intended that the applicable Treasury regulations will be amended for student loan bonds (where no facilities are financed), mortgage revenue bonds (where the exact residences to be financed may not be identified before issuance of the bonds), and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds that qualify for the special exception to the maturity limitation for pooled financings (where the facilities need not be identified before issuance of the bonds).” Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (JCS-10-87), at 1219 (May 4, 1987). Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations provide special rules for public approval of mortgage revenue bonds, qualified student loan bonds, and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds issued for pooled financings as described in section 147(b)(4).

    For mortgage revenue bonds, the Proposed Regulations would require the public approval information to state that the bonds will finance residential mortgages, provide the maximum stated principal amount of the bonds, and generally describe the issuer's geographic jurisdiction in which the residences to be financed with the mortgage loans are expected to be located. Similarly, for qualified student loan bonds, the Proposed Regulations would require the public approval information to state that the bonds will finance student loans and provide the maximum stated principal amount of the bonds. For these two types of bonds, the Proposed Regulations would not require the names of borrowers to be included in the public approval information.

    For qualified 501(c)(3) bonds that finance loans described in the special provision for pooled loan financings in section 147(b)(4), the Proposed Regulations would permit the issuer to choose to apply a two-stage public approval process if the issuer has insufficient information at the time of the reasonable public notice or public approval to meet the general public approval information requirements. To apply this special rule, the issuer must first obtain public approval within the time specified in the Proposed Regulations for public approval generally. For this first-stage public approval, the public approval information must state that the bonds will be qualified 501(c)(3) bonds used to finance loans described in section 147(b)(4)(B), provide the maximum stated principal amount of the bonds, generally describe the type of project to be financed with such loans (for example, loans for hospital facilities or college facilities), and state that the issuer will obtain an additional public approval with specific project information before origination of any such loans. In addition, before loan origination, the issuer must obtain a supplemental public approval of that loan containing all of the project-specific information that the public approval information rules generally require.

    6. Deviations From the Information in the Reasonable Public Notice and Public Approval

    Differences or “deviations” between information regarding a proposed project to be financed with a proposed issuance of private activity bonds that serves as the basis for a public approval and the actual project financed with the bonds may affect the validity of the public approval. The Existing Regulations and the Proposed Regulations provide that insubstantial deviations do not invalidate a public approval. The Proposed Regulations provide additional guidance concerning differences that constitute insubstantial deviations and also allow remedial actions to cure certain substantial deviations.

    The Proposed Regulations provide that whether a deviation is substantial generally depends on all of the facts and circumstances. The Proposed Regulations, however, would always treat a change in the fundamental nature or type of a project as a substantial deviation.

    The Proposed Regulations would treat certain specified deviations from the public approval information provided as insubstantial deviations. For example, a deviation from the size of a proposed bond issue for a proposed project specified in public approval information is an insubstantial deviation if the stated principal amount of bonds actually issued and used for the project is no more than ten percent (10%) greater than the maximum stated principal amount publicly approved for the project or is any amount less than that maximum stated principal amount. Furthermore, if an issuer applies proceeds of an issue approved for use on one project to pay working capital expenditures directly associated with any project approved in the same public approval, that deviation is an insubstantial deviation. Finally, a deviation between the initial owner or principal user of the project identified in the public approval information and the actual initial owner or principal user of the project is an insubstantial deviation if the parties are related on the issue date.

    The Proposed Regulations would allow supplemental post-issuance public approvals to cure certain substantial deviations that result from unexpected events or unforeseen changes in circumstances that occur after the issuance of the bonds. This remedial action is similar to a permitted post-issuance public approval under § 1.141-12(e)(2) and (f) used for remedial actions for purposes of the private business restrictions.

    7. Applicability Dates and Reliance

    The Proposed Regulations are proposed to apply to bonds issued pursuant to a public approval that occurs on or after the date that is 90 days after publication of a Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. Issuers may apply the Proposed Regulations, in whole but not in part, to bonds that are issued pursuant to a public approval that occurs on or after September 28, 2017 and before the applicability date provided in a Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to remove the Existing Regulations under § 5f.103-2 from 26 CFR part 5f effective on the general applicability date of the final regulations, which is proposed to be the date that is 90 days after publication of a Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Existing Regulations provide guidance on the minimum informational content, procedures, and timing for the statutorily required public notices, public hearings, and public approvals. Although the Proposed Regulations are expected to affect a significant number of small State or local governmental units that issue tax-exempt private activity bonds, the Proposed Regulations are not expected to have a significant economic effect on those governmental units because the Proposed Regulations generally would streamline and simplify the Existing Regulations in various respects to reduce the administrative burdens of meeting the statutory public approval requirement. For example, the Proposed Regulations would permit publication of public notice by Web site to reduce costs associated with print publication or radio or television broadcast, reduce the information required to be contained in public notice and public approval for certain types of bonds, liberalize the consequences of insubstantial changes in project information, and permit curative actions to address certain circumstances in which finished projects differ from descriptions provided in the public notice or public approval. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small entities.

    Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before the Proposed Regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these regulations are Spence Hanemann and Vicky Tsilas, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    26 CFR Part 5f

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-128841-07) that was published in the Federal Register (73 FR 52220) on September 9, 2008, is withdrawn. Also, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, § 1.103-17 of the notice of proposed rulemaking (LR-221-82) published in the Federal Register (48 FR 21166) on May 11, 1983, is withdrawn.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 5f are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.147(f)-1 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.147(f)-1 Public approval of private activity bonds.

    (a) In general. Interest on a private activity bond is excludable from gross income under section 103(a) only if the bond meets the requirements for a qualified bond as defined in section 141(e) and other applicable requirements provided in section 103. In order to be a qualified bond as defined in section 141(e), among other requirements, a private activity bond must meet the requirements of section 147(f). A private activity bond meets the requirements of section 147(f) only if the bond is publicly approved pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section or the bond qualifies for the exception for refunding bonds in section 147(f)(2)(D).

    (b) Public approval requirement—(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a bond meets the requirements of section 147(f) if, before the issue date, the issue of which the bond is a part receives issuer approval and host approval (each a public approval) as defined in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section in accordance with the method and process set forth in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section.

    (2) Issuer approval. Except as otherwise provided in this section, issuer approval means an approval that meets the requirements of this paragraph (b)(2). Either the governmental unit that issues the issue or the governmental unit on behalf of which the issue is issued must approve the issue. For this purpose, § 1.103-1 applies to the determination of whether an issuer issues bonds on behalf of another governmental unit. If an issuer issues bonds on behalf of more than one governmental unit (for example, in the case of an authority that acts for two counties), any one of those governmental units may provide the issuer approval.

    (3) Host approval. Except as otherwise provided in this section, host approval means an approval that meets the requirements of this paragraph (b)(3). Each governmental unit the geographic jurisdiction of which contains the site of a project to be financed by the issue must approve the issue. If, however, the entire site of a project to be financed by the issue is within the geographic jurisdiction of more than one governmental unit within a State (counting the State as a governmental unit within such State), then any one of those governmental units may provide host approval for the issue for that project. For purposes of the host approval, if a project to be financed by the issue is located within the geographic jurisdiction of two or more governmental units but not entirely within any one of those governmental units, each portion of the project that is located entirely within the geographic jurisdiction of the respective governmental units may be treated as a separate project. The issuer approval provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be treated as a host approval if the governmental unit providing the issuer approval is also a governmental unit eligible to provide the host approval pursuant to this paragraph (b)(3).

    (4) Special rule for host approval of airports or high-speed intercity rail facilities. Pursuant to a special rule in section 147(f)(3), if the proceeds of an issue are to be used to finance a project that consists of either facilities located at an airport (within the meaning of section 142(a)(1)) or high-speed intercity rail facilities (within the meaning of section 142(a)(11)) and the issuer of that issue is the owner or operator of the airport or high-speed intercity rail facilities, the issuer is the only governmental unit that is required to provide the host approval for that project.

    (5) Special rule for issuer approval of scholarship funding bond issues and volunteer fire department bond issues. In the case of a qualified scholarship funding bond as defined in section 150(d)(2), the governmental unit that made a request described in section 150(d)(2)(B) with respect to the issuer of the bond is the governmental unit on behalf of which the bond was issued for purposes of the issuer approval. If more than one governmental unit within a State made a request described in section 150(d)(2)(B), the State or any such requesting governmental unit may be treated as the governmental unit on behalf of which the bond was issued for purposes of the issuer approval. In the case of a bond of a volunteer fire department treated as a bond of a political subdivision of a State under section 150(e), the political subdivision described in section 150(e)(2)(B) with respect to that volunteer fire department is the governmental unit on behalf of which the bond is issued for purposes of the issuer approval.

    (6) Host approval not required for issues of mortgage revenue bonds, student loan bonds, and certain qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. In the case of a mortgage revenue bond (as defined in paragraph (g)(5) of this section), a qualified student loan bond as defined in section 144(b), and the portion of an issue of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as defined in section 145 that finances working capital expenditures, the issue or portion of the issue must receive an issuer approval but no host approval is necessary.

    (c) Method of public approval. The method of public approval of an issue must satisfy either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. An approval may satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (c) without regard to the authority under State or local law for the acts constituting that approval.

    (1) Applicable elected representative. An applicable elected representative of the approving governmental unit approves the issue following a public hearing for which there was reasonable public notice.

    (2) Voter referendum. A voter referendum of the approving governmental unit approves the issue.

    (d) Public hearing and reasonable public notice—(1) Public hearing. Public hearing means a forum providing a reasonable opportunity for interested individuals to express their views, orally or in writing, on the proposed issue of bonds and the location and nature of the proposed project to be financed.

    (2) Location of the public hearing. The public hearing must be held in a location that, based on the facts and circumstances, is convenient for residents of the approving governmental unit. The location of the public hearing is presumed convenient for residents of the unit if the public hearing is located in the approving governmental unit's capital or seat of government. If more than one governmental unit is required to hold a public hearing, the hearings may be combined as long as the combined hearing affords the residents of all of the participating governmental units a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The location of any combined hearing is presumed convenient for residents of each participating governmental unit if it is no farther than 100 miles from the seat of government of each participating governmental unit beyond whose geographic jurisdiction the hearing is conducted.

    (3) Procedures for conducting the public hearing. In general, a governmental unit may select its own procedure for a public hearing, provided that interested individuals have a reasonable opportunity to express their views. Thus, a governmental unit may impose reasonable requirements on persons who wish to participate in the hearing, such as a requirement that persons desiring to speak at the hearing make a written request to speak at least 24 hours before the hearing or that they limit their oral remarks to a prescribed time. For this purpose, it is unnecessary, for example, that the applicable elected representative of the approving governmental unit be present at the hearing, that a report on the hearing be submitted to that applicable elected representative, or that State administrative procedural requirements for public hearings be observed. Except to the extent State procedural requirements for public hearings are in conflict with a specific requirement of this section, a public hearing performed in compliance with State procedural requirements satisfies the requirements for a public hearing in this paragraph (d). A public hearing may be conducted by an individual appointed or employed to perform such function by the governmental unit or its agencies, or by the issuer. Thus, for example, for bonds to be issued by an authority that acts on behalf of a county, the hearing may be conducted by the authority, the county, or an appointee of either.

    (4) Reasonable public notice. Reasonable public notice means notice that is reasonably designed to inform residents of an approving governmental unit, including the issuing governmental unit and the governmental unit in whose geographic jurisdiction a project is to be located, of the proposed issue. The notice must state the time and place for the public hearing and contain the information required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section. Notice is presumed to be reasonably designed to inform residents of an approving governmental unit if it satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (d)(4) and is given no fewer than fourteen (14) calendar days before the public hearing in one or more of the ways set forth in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section.

    (i) Newspaper publication. Public notice may be given by publication in one or more newspapers of general circulation available to the residents of the governmental unit.

    (ii) Radio or television broadcast. Public notice may be given by radio or television broadcast to the residents of the governmental unit.

    (iii) Governmental unit Web site posting. Public notice may be given by electronic posting on the approving governmental unit's public Web site used to inform its residents about events affecting the residents (for example, notice of public meetings of the governmental unit). In the case of public notice provided as described in the first sentence of this paragraph (d)(4)(iii), the governmental unit must offer a reasonable, publicly known alternative method for obtaining the information contained in the public notice for residents without access to the Internet (such as telephone recordings).

    (iv) Alternative State law public notice procedures. Public notice may be given in a way that is permitted under a general State law for public notices for public hearings for the approving governmental unit.

    (e) Applicable elected representative—(1) In general—(i) Definition of applicable elected representative. The applicable elected representative of a governmental unit means—

    (A) The governmental unit's elected legislative body;

    (B) The governmental unit's chief elected executive officer;

    (C) In the case of a State, the chief elected legal officer of the State's executive branch of government; or

    (D) Any official elected by the voters of the governmental unit and designated for purposes of this section by the governmental unit's chief elected executive officer or by State or local law to approve issues for the governmental unit.

    (ii) Elected officials. For purposes of paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(B), (C), and (D) of this section, an official is considered elected only if that official is popularly elected at-large by the voters of the governmental unit. If an official popularly elected at-large by the voters of a governmental unit is appointed or selected pursuant to State or local law to be the chief executive officer of the unit, that official is deemed to be an elected chief executive officer for purposes of this section but for no longer than the official's tenure as an official popularly elected at-large.

    (iii) Legislative bodies. In the case of a bicameral legislature that is popularly elected, both chambers together constitute an applicable elected representative. Absent designation under paragraph (e)(1)(i)(D) of this section, however, neither such chamber independently constitutes an applicable elected representative. If multiple elected legislative bodies of a governmental unit have independent legislative authority, the body with the more specific authority relating to the issue is the only legislative body that is treated as an elected legislative body under paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of this section.

    (2) Governmental unit with no applicable elected representative—(i) In general. The applicable elected representatives of a governmental unit with no applicable elected representative (but for this paragraph (e)(2) and section 147(f)(2)(E)(ii)) are the applicable elected representatives of the next higher governmental unit (with an applicable elected representative) from which the governmental unit derives its authority. Except as otherwise provided in this section, any governmental unit from which the governmental unit with no applicable elected representative derives its authority may be treated as the next higher governmental unit without regard to the relative status of such higher governmental unit under State law. A governmental unit derives its authority from another governmental unit that—

    (A) Enacts a specific law (for example, a provision in a State constitution, charter, or statute) by or under which the governmental unit is created;

    (B) Otherwise empowers or approves the creation of the governmental unit; or

    (C) Appoints members to the governing body of the governmental unit.

    (ii) Host approval. For purposes of a host approval, a governmental unit may be treated as the next higher governmental unit only if the project is located within its geographic jurisdiction and eligible residents of the unit are entitled to vote for its applicable elected representatives.

    (3) On behalf of issuers. In the case of an issuer that issues bonds on behalf of a governmental unit, the applicable elected representative is any applicable elected representative of the governmental unit on behalf of which the bonds are issued.

    (f) Public approval process—(1) In general. The public approval process for an issue, including scope, content, and timing of the public approval, must meet the requirements of this paragraph (f). A governmental unit must timely approve either each project to be financed with proceeds of the issue or a plan of financing for each project to be financed with proceeds of the issue.

    (2) General rule on information required for a reasonable public notice and public approval. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a project to be financed with proceeds of an issue is within the scope of a public approval under section 147(f) if the reasonable public notice of the public hearing, if applicable, and the public approval (together the notice and approval) include the information set forth in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.

    (i) The project. The notice and approval must include a general functional description of the type and use of the project to be financed with the issue. For this purpose, a project description is sufficient if it identifies the project by reference to a particular category of exempt facility bond to be issued (for example, an exempt facility bond for an airport pursuant to section 142(a)(1)) or by reference to another general category of private activity bond together with information on the type and use of the project to be financed with the issue (for example, a qualified small issue bond as defined in section 144(a) for a manufacturing facility or a qualified 501(c)(3) bond as defined in section 145 for a hospital facility and working capital expenditures).

    (ii) The maximum stated principal amount of bonds. The notice and approval must include the maximum stated principal amount of the issue of private activity bonds to be issued to finance the project. If an issue finances multiple projects (for example, facilities at different locations on non-proximate sites that are not treated as part of the same project), the notice and approval must specify separately the maximum stated principal amount of bonds to be issued to finance each separate project.

    (iii) The name of the initial owner or principal user of the project. The notice and approval must include the name of the expected initial owner or principal user (within the meaning of section 144(a)) of the project. The name provided may be either the name of the legal owner or principal user of the project or, alternatively, the name of the true beneficial party of interest for such legal owner or user (for example, the name of a 501(c)(3) organization that is the sole member of a limited liability company that is the legal owner).

    (iv) The location of the project. The notice and approval must include a general description of the prospective location of the project by street address, reference to boundary streets or other geographic boundaries, or other description of the specific geographic location that is reasonably designed to inform readers of the location. For a project involving multiple capital projects or facilities located on the same site, or on adjacent or reasonably proximate sites with similar uses, a consolidated description of the location of those capital projects or facilities provides a sufficient description of the location of the project. For example, a project for a section 501(c)(3) educational entity involving multiple buildings on the entity's main urban college campus may describe the location of the project by reference to the outside street boundaries of that campus with a reference to any noncontiguous features of that campus.

    (3) Special rule for mortgage revenue bonds. Mortgage loans financed by mortgage revenue bonds are within the scope of a public approval if the notice and approval state that the bonds are to be issued to finance residential mortgages, provide the maximum stated principal amount of mortgage revenue bonds expected to be issued, and provide a general description of the geographic jurisdiction in which the residences to be financed with the proceeds of the mortgage revenue bonds are expected to be located (for example, residences located throughout a State for an issuer with a statewide jurisdiction or residences within a particular local geographic jurisdiction, such as within a city or county, for a local issuer). For this purpose, in the case of mortgage revenue bonds, no information is required on specific names of mortgage loan borrowers or specific locations of individual residences to be financed.

    (4) Special rule for qualified student loan bonds. Qualified student loans financed by qualified student loan bonds as defined in section 144(b) are within the scope of a public approval if the notice and approval state that the bonds will be issued to finance student loans and state the maximum stated principal amount of qualified student loan bonds expected to be issued for qualified student loans. For this purpose, in the case of qualified student loan bonds, no information is required with respect to names of specific student loan borrowers.

    (5) Special rule for certain qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. Loans financed by qualified 501(c)(3) bonds issued pursuant to section 145 and described in section 147(b)(4)(B) (without regard to any election under section 147(b)(4)(A)) are within the scope of a public approval if the requirements of paragraphs (f)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section are met.

    (i) Pre-issuance general public approval. Within the time period required by paragraph (f)(7) of this section, public approval is obtained after reasonable public notice of a public hearing is provided and a public hearing is held. For this purpose, a project is treated as described in the notice and approval if the notice and approval provide that the bonds will be qualified 501(c)(3) bonds to be used to finance loans described in section 147(b)(4)(B), state the maximum stated principal amount of bonds expected to be issued to finance loans to 501(c)(3) organizations or governmental units as described in section 147(b)(4)(B), provide a general description of the type of project to be financed with such loans (for example, loans for hospital facilities or college facilities), and state that an additional public approval that includes specific project information will be obtained before any such loans are originated.

    (ii) Post-issuance public approval for specific loans. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5)(iii) of this section, before a loan described in section 147(b)(4)(B) is originated, a supplemental public approval for the bonds to be used to finance that loan is obtained that meets all the requirements of section 147(f) and the requirements for a public approval in paragraph (b) of this section. This post-issuance supplemental public approval requirement applies by treating the bonds to be used to finance such loan as if they were reissued for purposes of section 147(f) (without regard to paragraph (f)(5) of this section). For this purpose, proceeds to be used to finance such loan do not include the portion of the issue used to finance a common reserve fund or common costs of issuance.

    (iii) Exception to post-issuance public approval requirement. A post-issuance supplemental public approval pursuant to paragraph (f)(5)(ii) of this section is unnecessary for the initial use of proceeds to finance one or more loans if the pre-issuance notice and approval pursuant to paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section include the information required by paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for the projects to be financed by those loans.

    (6) Deviations in public approval information—(i) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a substantial deviation between the stated use of proceeds of an issue included in the information required to be provided in the notice and approval (public approval information) and the actual use of proceeds of the issue causes that issue to fail to meet the public approval requirement. Conversely, insubstantial deviations between the stated use of proceeds of an issue included in the public approval information and the actual use of proceeds of the issue do not cause such a failure. In general, the determination of whether a deviation is substantial is based on all the facts and circumstances. In all events, however, a change in the fundamental nature or type of a project is a substantial deviation.

    (ii) Certain insubstantial deviations in public approval information. The following deviations from the public approval information in the notice and approval are treated as insubstantial deviations:

    (A) Size of bond issue and use of proceeds. A deviation between the maximum stated principal amount of a proposed issuance of bonds to finance a project that is specified in public approval information and the actual stated principal amount of bonds issued and used to finance that project is an insubstantial deviation if that actual stated principal amount is no more than ten percent (10%) greater than that maximum stated principal amount or is any amount less than that maximum stated principal amount. In addition, the use of proceeds to pay working capital expenditures directly associated with any project specified in the public approval information is an insubstantial deviation.

    (B) Initial owner or principal user. A deviation between the initial owner or principal user of the project named in the notice and approval and the actual initial owner or principal user of the project is an insubstantial deviation if such parties are related parties on the issue date of the issue.

    (iii) Supplemental public approval to cure certain substantial deviations in public approval information. A substantial deviation between the stated use of proceeds of an issue included in the public approval information and the actual use of the proceeds of the issue does not cause that issue to fail to meet the public approval requirement if all of the following requirements are met:

    (A) Original public approval and reasonable expectations. The issue met the requirements for a public approval in paragraph (b) of this section. In addition, on the issue date of the issue, the issuer reasonably expected there would be no substantial deviations between the stated use of proceeds of an issue included in the public approval information and the actual use of the proceeds of the issue.

    (B) Unexpected events or unforeseen changes in circumstances. As a result of unexpected events or unforeseen changes in circumstances that occur after the issue date of the issue, the issuer determines to use proceeds of the issue in a manner or amount not provided in a public approval.

    (C) Supplemental public approval. Before using proceeds of the bonds in a manner or amount not provided in a public approval, the issuer obtains a supplemental public approval for those bonds that meets the public approval requirement in paragraph (b) of this section. This supplemental public approval requirement applies by treating those bonds as if they were reissued for purposes of section 147(f).

    (7) Certain timing requirements. Public approval of an issue is timely only if the issuer obtains the public approval within one year before the issue date of the issue. Public approval of a plan of financing is timely only if the issuer obtains public approval for the plan of financing within one year before the issue date of the first issue issued under the plan of financing and the issuer issues all issues under the plan of financing within three years after the issue date of such first issue.

    (g) Definitions. The definitions in this paragraph (g) apply for purposes of this section. In addition, the general definitions in § 1.150-1 apply for purposes of this section.

    (1) Geographic jurisdiction means the area encompassed by the boundaries prescribed by State or local law for a governmental unit or, if there are no such boundaries, the area in which a unit may exercise such sovereign powers that make that unit a governmental unit for purposes of § 1.103-1 and this section.

    (2) Governmental unit has the meaning of “State or local governmental unit” as defined in § 1.103-1. Thus, a governmental unit is a State, territory, a possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision thereof.

    (3) Host approval is defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

    (4) Issuer approval is defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

    (5) Mortgage revenue bonds mean qualified mortgage bonds as defined in section 143(a), qualified veterans' mortgage bonds as defined in section 143(b), or refunding bonds issued to finance mortgages of owner-occupied residences pursuant to applicable law in effect prior to enactment of section 143(a) or section 143(b).

    (6) Proceeds means “proceeds” as defined in § 1.141-1(b), except that it does not include disposition proceeds.

    (7) Project generally means one or more capital projects or facilities, including land, buildings, equipment, and other property, to be financed with an issue, that are located on the same site, or adjacent or proximate sites used for similar purposes, and that are subject to the public approval requirement of section 147(f). For an issue of mortgage revenue bonds or an issue of qualified student loan bonds as defined in section 144(b), the term project means the mortgage loans or qualified student loans to be financed with the proceeds of the issue. For an issue of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as defined in section 145, the term project means a project as defined in the first sentence of this definition, and also is deemed to include working capital expenditures to be financed with proceeds of the issue.

    (8) Public approval information is defined in paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section.

    (9) Public hearing is defined in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

    (10) Reasonable public notice is defined in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.

    (11) Voter referendum means a vote by the voters of the affected governmental unit conducted in the same manner and time as voter referenda on matters relating to governmental spending or bond issuances by the governmental unit under applicable State and local law.

    (h) Applicability date. This section applies to bonds issued pursuant to a public approval occurring on or after the date that is 90 days after publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. For bonds issued pursuant to a public approval occurring before that date, see § 5f.103-2 as contained in 26 CFR part 5f, revised as of the date of the most recent annual revision.

    PART 5f—TEMPORARY INCOME TAX REGULATIONS UNDER THE TAX EQUITY AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1982 Par. 3. The authority citation for part 5f continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    § 5f.103-2 [Removed]
    Par. 4. Section 5f.103-2 is removed. Kirsten Wielobob, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20661 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0215; FRL-9968-32-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Trading Programs AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of removing regulations from the Virginia SIP that established EPA-administered annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading programs under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). These EPA-administered trading programs under CAIR were discontinued on December 31, 2014 upon the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CASPR), which was promulgated by EPA to replace CAIR. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by October 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0215 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: September 8, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20723 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0083; FRL-9968-43-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Nonattainment Plan for the Central New Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that the State of New Hampshire submitted to EPA on January 31, 2017 for attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. This plan (herein called a “nonattainment plan”) includes New Hampshire's attainment demonstration and other elements required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition to an attainment demonstration, the nonattainment plan addresses the requirement for meeting reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), base-year and projection-year emission inventories, and contingency measures. As a part of approving the attainment demonstration, EPA is also proposing to approve SO2 emission limits and associated compliance parameters for Merrimack Station into the New Hampshire SIP. EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire has appropriately demonstrated that the nonattainment plan provisions provide for attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS in the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area by the applicable attainment date and that the nonattainment plan meets the other applicable requirements under the CAA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0083 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leiran Biton, EPA New England, 5 Post Office Square Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-2, Boston, MA 02109-3912; phone: 617-918-1267; fax: 617-918-0267; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Why was New Hampshire required to submit an SO2 plan for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment area? II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer-Term Averaging IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan A. Model Selection and Modeling Components B. Area of Analysis C. Receptor Grid D. Meteorological Data E. Source Characterization F. Emissions Data G. Emission Limits 1. Enforceability 2. Longer-Term Average Limits H. Background Concentrations I. Summary of Results V. Review of Other Plan Requirements A. Emissions Inventory B. RACM/RACT C. New Source Review (NSR) D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) E. Contingency Measures VI. Additional Elements of New Hampshire's Submittal A. Conformity B. Changes in Allowable Emissions C. Air Quality Trends D. Compliance With Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA E. Equivalency Techniques VII. EPA's Proposed Action VIII. Incorporation by Reference IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Why was New Hampshire required to submit an SO2 plan for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment area?

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

    For a number of areas, including the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016 that New Hampshire and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required SO2 nonattainment plan by the submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source and highway funding sanctions, and for EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) of the CAA. In response to the requirement for SO2 nonattainment plan submittals, New Hampshire submitted a nonattainment plan for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area on January 31, 2017. Pursuant to New Hampshire's January 31, 2017 submittal and EPA's subsequent letter dated March 20, 2017 to New Hampshire finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of the sanctions deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed. However, to stop the deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP, the state must have made the necessary complete submittal and EPA must have approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements no later than two years after the prior finding of failure to submit. Therefore, EPA remains under a FIP deadline of April 18, 2018. This FIP obligation will not apply if EPA issues final approval of New Hampshire's SIP submittal by April 18, 2018.

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

    II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans

    Nonattainment SIPs must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192. EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs in a document entitled, “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and fundamental principles for SIP control strategies. Id., at 13545-49, 13567-68. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance for meeting the statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs, in a document entitled, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,” available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. In this guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements for a complete nonattainment area SIP, which includes: An accurate emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area, an attainment demonstration, demonstration of RFP, implementation of RACM (including RACT), an approvable NSR program, enforceable emissions limitations and control measures as needed for timely attainment, and adequate contingency measures for the affected area.

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

    III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer-Term Averaging

    CAA sections 172(c)(1) and (6) direct states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. Forty CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. See General Preamble, at 13567-68. SO2 attainment plans must consist of two components: (1) Emission limits and other control measures that assure implementation of permanent, enforceable, and necessary emission controls; and (2) a modeling analysis that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W (the Guideline on Air Quality Models; “the Guideline”) and demonstrates that these emission limits and control measures provide for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the attainment date for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limits and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine compliance with the respective emission limits and control measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear, unambiguous, and measurable requirements for which compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result), and accountable (source specific limits must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP demonstrations).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a source always emits 1,000 pounds of SO2 per hour and results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an “average year,” these emissions cause the five highest maximum daily average 1-hour concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission limit of 700 pounds per hour. It is theoretically possible for a source meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1,000 pounds per hour, but with a typical emission profile, emissions would much more commonly be between 600 and 800 pounds per hour. In this simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend on what emissions occur during critical hours, but suppose that emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds per hour, 1,100 pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour, 900 pounds per hour, and 1,200 pounds per hour, respectively. (This is a conservative example because the average of these emissions, 900 pounds per hour, is well over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would result in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred, but the third and fourth days would not have exceedances that otherwise would have occurred. In this example, the fourth highest maximum daily concentration under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.

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

    The question then becomes whether this approach—which is likely to produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value—meets the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) and (6) for state implementation plans to “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS. For SO2, as for other pollutants, it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment plan in the present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in the future. A variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment plan to fail and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if meteorology occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was anticipated in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets the requirement to provide for attainment, EPA's task is commonly to judge not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment will in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate level of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective, in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk that occasions with meteorology conducive to high concentrations will have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement for lower emissions on average will result in days not having exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at the critical emission value. Additional policy considerations, such as in this case the desirability of accommodating real world emissions variability without significant risk of violations, are also appropriate factors for EPA to weigh in judging whether a plan provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan will lead to attainment. Based on these considerations, especially given the high likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long as 30 days, determined in accordance with EPA's guidance, will result in attainment, EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

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

    2 For example, if the critical emission value is 1,000 pounds of SO2 per hour, and a suitable adjustment factor is determined to be 70 percent, the recommended longer-term average limit would be 700 pounds per hour.

    Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in appendix A of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models. In 2005, EPA promulgated AERMOD as the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. On December 20, 2016, EPA revised the Guideline, which provided additional regulatory options and updated methods for dispersion modeling with AERMOD; the updates became effective on May 22, 2017. Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO2 standard is provided in appendix A to the April 23, 2014 SO2 nonattainment area SIP guidance document referenced above. Appendix A of the guidance provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.

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

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

    IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan

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

    A. Model Selection and Modeling Components

    New Hampshire's attainment demonstration used EPA's preferred model AERMOD (version 15181) with default options (e.g., without use of the ADJ_U* option) and rural dispersion coefficients for this application. The AERMOD modeling system contains the following components:

    —AERMOD: The dispersion model —AERMAP: The terrain processor for AERMOD —AERMET: The meteorological data processor for AERMOD —BPIP-PRIME: The building input processor —AERMINUTE: A pre-processor to AERMET incorporating 1-minute automated surface observation system (ASOS) wind data —AERSURFACE: The surface characteristics processor for AERMET —AERSCREEN: A screening version of AERMOD

    For any dispersion modeling exercise, the “urban” or “rural” determination of a source is important in determining the boundary layer characteristics that affect the model's prediction of downwind concentrations. For SO2 modeling, the urban/rural determination is important because AERMOD invokes a 4-hour half-life for urban SO2 sources.

    To investigate whether the rural determination was correct, EPA examined aerial imagery within 3 km of the facility and classified land use within the total area, as described in section 7.2.1.1 of the Guideline. Using this approach, EPA found that less than 50 percent of the land use in the area reflected urban characteristics, and that therefore, consistent with the State's selection, rural dispersion characteristics were most appropriate for use in this assessment.

    The State used AERMOD version 15181, the most up-to-date version at the time the area was modeled, using all regulatory default options. AERMOD version 16216r has since become the regulatory model version. There were no updates from 15181 to 16216r that would significantly affect the concentrations predicted here.

    The ADJ_U* option, which adjusts the minimum surface roughness velocity under stable, low-wind speed conditions, was not invoked by the State. Not invoking ADJ_U*, as in the demonstration submitted by New Hampshire, may result in higher modeled concentrations; therefore, this element of the model option selection is conservative (i.e., unlikely to underpredict concentrations).

    EPA finds this selection appropriate because this model version using default options is sufficiently up to date, the rural option selection is in line with site characteristics, and the selection of default surface roughness velocity characteristics (i.e., no ADJ_U*) is not expected to underpredict concentrations.

    B. Area of Analysis

    New Hampshire accounted for SO2 impacts in the modeling domain, which extends in a 50 km radius around Merrimack Station and includes both locations within and outside of the nonattainment area, through the inclusion of measured background levels and explicitly modeled emission sources. The only source New Hampshire included explicitly in the modeling was Merrimack Station. In the narrative of the January 31, 2017 SIP submittal, New Hampshire indicated that other emitters of SO2 were accounted for in the background levels monitored within the nonattainment area. (The approach for developing the monitored background levels is described in detail in section IV.H, below.) In the submittal, New Hampshire also identified sources with annual emissions greater than 100 tons SO2 per year outside of the nonattainment area. Specifically, in the submission to EPA, New Hampshire identified Schiller Station and Newington Station, which are both located in the New Hampshire seacoast area approximately 55 km to the east southeast of Merrimack Station, as the principal nearby emitters of over 100 tons SO2 annually. Schiller and Newington stations are each located about 30 km from the boundary of the nonattainment area.

    For the purpose of ensuring that no other sources of SO2 were inappropriately excluded in New Hampshire's modeling, EPA reviewed its 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), version 1 for sources within or nearby to the nonattainment area. During this review, EPA identified one additional source in the region that has emitted greater than 100 tons of SO2 annually, though not within the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. The source, Monadnock Paper Mills Inc. (Monadnock Paper), a pulp and paper facility located in Bennington, New Hampshire approximately 40 km to the southwest of Merrimack Station and 24 km from the closest portion of the nonattainment area, emitted 148 tons SO2 in 2014 according to the 2014 NEI.

    EPA examined whether Monadnock Paper might have an influence on the nonattainment area. The main criterion described in section 8.3 of the Guideline for establishing whether a secondary source is adequately represented by ambient monitoring data is whether that secondary source causes a significant concentration gradient in the vicinity of the primary source under consideration. In this context, secondary sources that do not cause a significant concentration gradient are typically considered to be adequately represented in the monitored ambient background. Based on the magnitude of emissions and distance relative to the nonattainment area, EPA believes it is unlikely that Monadnock Paper will cause a significant concentration gradient within the nonattainment area and has concluded that Monadnock Paper is adequately represented in the monitored ambient background.

    To examine the possible influence of other sources on the nonattainment area, EPA considered the most recent modeling assessment for Schiller and Newington stations provided by New Hampshire to EPA in February 2017 for purposes of SO2 designations. That modeling and EPA's evaluation of it are described in detail in the New Hampshire technical support document for EPA's intended designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, for which EPA sent letters to states on August 22, 2017. Based on this information, EPA found no significant concentration gradient due to emissions from Schiller Station or Newington Station within the nonattainment area and has concluded that both stations are adequately represented in the monitored ambient background.

    Additionally, EPA believes that the background levels reasonably account for other sources influencing air quality within the nonattainment area because data used to develop background levels include hours during which those sources may have impacted the monitors.

    Therefore, based on the reasoning provided in the preceding paragraphs, EPA concludes that the State appropriately accounted for these other sources through the inclusion of monitored background concentrations (see section IV.H below).

    C. Receptor Grid

    Within AERMOD, air quality concentration results are calculated at discrete locations identified by the user; these locations are called receptors. The receptor placement for the area of analysis selected by the State is a network of polar grids centered on Merrimack Station to a distance of 50 km in all directions. Polar grid radii were spaced at 10 degree intervals. Receptors were placed every 20 meters along the perimeter of and excluded within the facility. Polar receptors along the radii were spaced as follows:

    —20-meter spacing to 200 meters; —50-meter spacing from 200 meters to 500 meters; —100-meter spacing from 500 meters to 2 km; —250-meter spacing from 2 km to 10 km; —500-meter spacing from 10 km to 30 km; and —1,000-meter spacing from 30 km to 50 km.

    In addition to the 4,349 receptors included in the description above, the State included 2,308 additional receptors in dense Cartesian arrays with 100-meter spatial resolution, over areas of expected maximum predicted concentrations based on preliminary modeling. Specifically, this was done in areas of complex terrain features at distances between 5 and 15 km of Merrimack Station.

    The receptor network contained a total of 6,657 receptors, covering a circular area of 50 km in radius, including the entirety of the nonattainment area. EPA finds that the modeling domain and receptor network are sufficient to identify maximum impacts from Merrimack Station, and are therefore adequate for characterizing the nonattainment area.

    D. Meteorological Data

    New Hampshire used AERMOD's meteorological data preprocessor AERMET (version 15181) with 2 years of surface and concurrent upper air meteorological data. The State relied on site-specific surface observations collected at Merrimack Station in Bow, New Hampshire during the 23-month period from January 1994 through November 1995 at five meteorological tower measurement levels and fifteen SODAR (Sound Detection and Ranging) levels. In addition, the State used surface observations from the National Weather Service (NWS) station at Concord Municipal Airport in Concord, New Hampshire (WBAN Station No. 14745) in the following ways: (1) To supplement site-specific surface data with additional parameters (sky cover, ceiling height, and surface pressure) not available in the site-specific meteorological data, (2) to substitute for missing site-specific wind observations (51 hours of the 16,776 hours of the 23 month period), and (3) to extend the meteorological dataset through December 1995 to develop a full 2-year analysis period. Concord Municipal Airport is approximately 7 km to the north-northwest of Merrimack Station. The State used coincident upper air observations from different NWS stations located in Portland, Maine (WBAN Station No. 14764) from January 1, 1994 through September 21, 1994, and Gray, Maine (WBAN Station No. 54762) from September 22, 1994 through December 31, 1995. (The Portland station ceased its upper air observations on September 22, 1994, when the Gray station began its upper air observations.) The Portland station is around 110 km to the northeast of Merrimack and the Gray station is around 130 km to the northeast of Merrimack.

    New Hampshire also considered the use of more recent (2008-2012) NWS data collected at Concord Municipal Airport. The State cited two potential advantages of using this alternative dataset, mainly that it was significantly newer and included data derived from 1-minute resolution observations using the AERMINUTE preprocessor to AERMET. New Hampshire weighed these considerations against the advantages of using the 1994-1995 site-specific data, specifically: (1) The observation height for the site-specific data is closer in height to the stacks at Merrimack Station than the 8 meter collection height for the NWS data; (2) the site-specific wind direction data are more representative of the channeling effect within the Merrimack River valley in the location of Merrimack Station; and (3) use of the site-specific data would be consistent with previous modeling of Merrimack, which relied on the site-specific meteorology.

    EPA concurs with the choice of surface and upper air meteorological data inputs as being appropriately representative of site-specific meteorology. Specifically, EPA has judged the representativeness of the measured surface meteorological data according to the following four factors, as listed in section 8.4.1(b) to the Guideline: (1) The proximity of the meteorological monitoring site to the area under consideration, (2) the complexity of the terrain, (3) the exposure of the meteorological monitoring site, and (4) the period of time during which data are collected. Regarding proximity (factor 1), the site-specific data is preferred over the more distant NWS data, though both data sources are sufficiently close to be appropriately representative of the site. Regarding the complexity of terrain (factor 2), both Concord and the site-specific location show wind flow patterns with predominant northwest flow and secondary southeast flows, but the site-specific data show a more pronounced valley channeling effect with fewer hours with wind flow in other directions. In terms of exposure of the site, neither location appears to be exposed in a way that would have biased data collection (factor 3). Finally, regarding the data collection time period (factor 4), the more recent data at the NWS station would allow for use of 1-minute resolution data for more accurate wind data inputs, and would be preferred for this factor. Notwithstanding the age of the onsite data, current land-use is comparable to historical land-use, so that the historic meteorological data are sufficiently representative of current conditions. In summary, based on the four factors described above, despite the availability of recent nearby NWS data, the analysis suggests that the 1994-1995 site-specific data augmented with NWS data are more representative of conditions pertinent to releases at Merrimack Station. The 23 months of site-specific data supplemented with 1 additional month of NWS data represent an appropriate study period, consistent with EPA guidance contained in section 8.4.2(e) of the Guideline, which states that at least 1 year of site-specific meteorological data are required to ensure that worst-case meteorological conditions are adequately represented in the model results. The upper air stations selected for the analysis are the closest sites and are suitably representative of the upper air in the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area, and are therefore most appropriate for developing upper air profiles for the State's modeling analysis.

    The State used AERSURFACE version 13016 using land cover data from the 1992 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) for both surface data collection locations to estimate the surface characteristics (albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness length) of the area of analysis. The State estimated surface roughness length values for 12 spatial sectors out to the recommended radius of 1 km at a monthly temporal resolution for average surface moisture conditions. EPA concurs with New Hampshire's approach to developing relevant surface characteristics for use in processing meteorological data for this area.

    E. Source Characterization

    EPA also reviewed the State's source characterization in its modeling assessment, including source types, use of accurate stack parameters, and inclusion of building dimensions for building downwash. The State's source characterization in its modeling demonstration was consistent with the recommendations included in the Guideline. The source used actual stack height (445 feet), which EPA determined to be good engineering practice (GEP) height using BPIP-PRIME. The State also adequately characterized the source's building layout and location, as well as the stack parameters, e.g., exit temperature, exit velocity, location, and diameter. EPA verified the position of buildings and stacks using aerial imagery and relevant stack parameters based on permit conditions.

    F. Emissions Data

    New Hampshire included maximum allowable 1-hour emissions from Merrimack Station in its modeled attainment demonstration for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. The State indicated that SO2 air quality in the area is almost entirely characterized by emissions from the two primary boilers at Merrimack Station, and this informed the State's decision to only explicitly model SO2 emissions from Merrimack Station. Additional units (i.e., two peak combustion turbines, an emergency generator, an emergency boiler, and a fire pump) at Merrimack Station operate infrequently and were treated as intermittent sources; therefore, they were excluded from the modeling.3 The State provided historical (2011-2014) counts of hours of operation for these units to bolster its contention that these units do not contribute to the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations. Specifically, during the 2011-2014 period, the two turbines were operated during an average of 40 and 45 hours per year, the emergency generator during an average of 17 hours per year, the emergency boiler during an average of 43 hours per year, and the fire pump during an average of 3 hours per year. The maximum annual usage of any of these pieces of equipment during that time was 114 hours for combustion turbine 1 in 2014. The emergency generator is limited through section Env-A 1311.02(a) of New Hampshire's SIP-approved air pollution control regulations, to a maximum of 500 hours of operation during any consecutive 12-month period. The fire pump is limited to a maximum of 100 hours for maintenance and testing during any consecutive 12-month period because it is subject to EPA's New Source Performance Standards for stationary internal combustion engines, specifically 40 CFR 60.4211(e). These utilization levels and patterns are consistent with EPA's assessment of intermittent emissions based on the March 1, 2011 EPA guidance. EPA believes that this treatment is appropriate for those units in this area.

    3 The March 1, 2011 EPA memorandum from Tyler Fox to EPA Regional Air Division Directors entitled “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” which also includes information relevant to modeling for SO2, addresses treatment of intermittent sources. This guidance indicates that air permitting authorities have discretion to exclude certain types of intermittent emissions for modeling the 1-hour NAAQS on a case-specific basis.

    New Hampshire provided attainment modeling used to support its establishment of emission rates for Merrimack Station. In establishing the emission limits, the State followed EPA's April 2014 guidance by using modeling to develop a critical emission value and adjustment factor to establish a longer term limit for Merrimack. The State modeled three “normal operating scenarios,” comprised of one scenario with maximum operation of both utility boilers (scenario 1), and two other scenarios with maximum operation of each boiler individually (scenarios 2 and 3, respectively). In 2011, New Hampshire issued a permit (TP-0008) for Merrimack Station that contained, among other things, SO2 emission limits associated with a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. The FGD was required to be installed at Merrimack Station by the New Hampshire legislature. See New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 125-O:11. EPA approved the SO2-related source-specific requirements of that permit into the New Hampshire SIP as part of the State's regional haze SIP submittal. See 77 FR 50602 (August 22, 2012). In September 2016, New Hampshire issued a second permit (TP-0189) for Merrimack Station, which included SO2 emission limits specifically designed to ensure compliance with the SO2 NAAQS. The emission limits included in TP-0189, and which New Hampshire has proposed for inclusion in the State's SIP, apply at all times. The State's modeling established a critical emission value of 2,544 pounds (lb) SO2 per hour for scenario 1, which the State concluded is comparably stringent to a 7-boiler operating day rolling average limit of 0.39 lb SO2 per million British thermal units (MMBtu). The 7-boiler operating day rolling average emissions limits that would be comparably stringent to the 1-hour critical emission value under scenarios 2 and 3 would be 0.92 and 0.47 lb SO2/MMBtu, respectively. Because scenario 1 was the basis for establishing this limit, and the limit (0.39 lb/MMBtu) is more stringent than the limits that would have been established for either scenario 2 or 3 (0.92 and 0.47 lb/MMBtu, respectively), using emissions from scenario 1 as the basis of the modeling analysis is appropriate. See section IV.G.2 below for further details on the emissions in the State's attainment modeling, including discussion of the State's conclusion of comparable stringency with the critical emission value.

    In summary, EPA concurs with the State's selection in its attainment demonstration modeling of emissions from utility boilers at Merrimack Station, and exclusion of additional emission sources at Merrimack due to their intermittent operation.

    G. Emission Limits

    An important prerequisite for approval of a nonattainment plan is that the emission limits that provide for attainment be quantifiable, fully enforceable, replicable, and accountable. See General Preamble at 13567-68. The limits that New Hampshire's plan relies on for Merrimack Station are expressed as 7-boiler operating day rolling average limits, where a boiler operating day is defined as a 24-hour period that begins at midnight and ends the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in the boiler; it is not necessary for the fuel to be combusted for the entire 24-hour period. Therefore, part of the review of New Hampshire's nonattainment plan must address the use of these limits, both with respect to the general suitability of using such limits for this purpose and with respect to whether the particular limits included in the plan have been suitably demonstrated to provide for attainment. The first subsection that follows addresses the enforceability of the limits in the plan, and the second subsection that follows addresses in particular the 7-boiler operating day average limits.

    1. Enforceability

    On September 1, 2016, New Hampshire issued a permit, TP-0189, to Public Service of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy for Merrimack Station. The permit became effective and enforceable upon issuance, and was issued pursuant to RSA 125-C:11. These requirements are more stringent than the applicable measures for the facility, which require 90% reduction for both MK1 and MK2, as incorporated into the SIP by reference to Table 4, Items 6 and 8 of TP-0008. EPA considers the 30-boiler operating day limits included in TP-0189 (specifically, Table 4, Item 2) to supersede the conditions specified in Table 4, Items 6 and 8 of TP-0008.

    Monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements related to all of the permit's SO2 emission limits are clearly described in the permit and ensure that the limits are quantifiable, fully enforceable, and replicable. The accountability of the limits is established through the State's inclusion of the permit limits in its nonattainment plan, and its modeling demonstration using the 1-hour emission levels that are comparably stringent to the permit limits. In accordance with EPA policy, the 7-boiler operating day average limit for Merrimack Station is set at a lower level than the critical emission value used in the attainment demonstration; the relationship between these two values is discussed in more detail in the following section.

    2. Longer-Term Average Limits

    New Hampshire developed a critical emission value for each of the three normal operating scenarios (see section IV.F above) using a target concentration threshold of 183.2 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) by subtracting a background value of 12.8 μg/m3, the highest hour-by-season background value (see section IV.H below), from 196 μg/m3, which is equivalent to the level of the NAAQS of 75 ppb.4 The State then divided the target concentration threshold by the maximum predicted 99th percentile concentration using a unit emission rate (i.e., 1 lb/hr) for each normal operating scenario to establish the critical emission value for each scenario (e.g., 2,544 lb/hr, equivalent to a limit of 0.54 lb/MMBtu at full operating load, for scenario 1).

    4 Using a numerical conversion factor of 2.619 μg/m3 per ppb, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb is equivalent to 196.4 μg/m3. The state rounded 196.4 μg/m3 down to a more protective level of 196 μg/m3. EPA is using the lower value in this case because it is consistent with the State's analysis and is also protective of the NAAQS.

    Using hourly emission data provided by EPA's Air Markets Program Data database for Merrimack Station for the period between July 4, 2013 and March 30, 2015 (i.e., since the FGD system became operational), the State derived adjustment factors for longer-term averaging periods for each scenario. Because the dataset includes only data from Merrimack Station using the control technology, it is appropriate for use in developing adjustment factors. Prior to deriving the adjustment factors, the State removed erroneous data points from the dataset based on information provided by the facility. The adjustment factors were calculated as the ratio of the 99th percentile of mass emissions for the longer-term period to the 99th percentile hourly mass emissions. For the rolling 7-day averaging period, the adjustment factor was 0.73 for each of the three scenarios. That is, the 7-day mass emission rate limit would need to be 0.73 times (or 27% lower than) the critical emission value to have comparable stringency as a 1-hour rate limit. The 7-day adjustment factor of 0.73 for Merrimack Station is similar to 0.71, EPA's average 30-day adjustment factor for sources with wet scrubbers (derived from a database of 210 sources) as listed in appendix D of the April 2014 guidance. The State then derived emission limits for each scenario on an emission per heat-input basis, and selected the lowest level for the 7-day averaging period of 0.39 lb/MMBtu.

    Based on a review of the State's submittal, EPA believes that the 7-boiler operating day average limit for Merrimack Station provides a suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit for this source. The State has used a suitable database in an appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment, yielding an emission limit that has comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limit that the State determined would otherwise have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the 7-boiler operating day average limit allows occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the State's limit compensates by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit. For the reasons described above and explained in more detail in EPA's April 2014 guidance for SO2 nonattainment plans, EPA finds that appropriately set longer-term average limits provide a reasonable basis by which nonattainment plans may provide for attainment. Based on our review of this general information as well as the particular information in New Hampshire's plan, EPA finds that the 7-boiler operating day average limit for Merrimack Station will provide for attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.

    In the April 2014 guidance for SO2, EPA also described possible supplemental limits on the frequency and/or magnitude of elevated emissions to strengthen the justification for the use of longer-term average limits to protect against NAAQS violations. One option provided in the guidance regarding this topic is the use of relatively shorter averaging times, which provide less allowance of emission spikes than would longer averaging times, i.e., the 30-day averaging time. In this instance, the emission limit for Merrimack Station is on a 7-boiler operating day average basis and the limit applies at all times. Furthermore, the adjustment factor used to derive the limit is similar to 0.71, EPA's average 30-day adjustment factor for sources with wet scrubbers as listed in appendix D of the April 2014 guidance, meaning that the factor used to adjust the emission limit downward is more pronounced for a 7-day period than would typically be expected. Based on these considerations, EPA believes that the 7-boiler operating day limits are sufficiently protective of the NAAQS without application of an additional, supplemental limit.

    H. Background Concentrations

    To develop background concentrations for the nonattainment area, the State of New Hampshire relied on 2012-2014 data from two monitors within the nonattainment area: The Pembroke monitor, Air Quality System (AQS) number 33-013-1006, and the Concord monitor, AQS number 33-013-1007. The Pembroke monitor is located on Pleasant Street in Pembroke, New Hampshire, about 1.3 km to the southeast of Merrimack Station, and the Concord monitor is located at Hazen Drive in Concord, New Hampshire, about 9.4 km to the north-northwest of Merrimack Station. Each of these monitors was sited to record neighborhood scale exposure levels rather than regional background levels; there are currently no regional background monitors in the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. Per section 8.3.1.a of the Guideline, background air quality should not include the ambient impacts of the source under consideration. Both the Pembroke and Concord monitors reflect impacts attributable to Merrimack Station. One solution to develop background concentrations from monitoring data around an isolated source, as described in section 8.3.2.c.i of the Guidance, is to exclude monitor measurements collected when wind is from a 90° sector centered on the source. Due to the low wind speeds and swirling winds characteristic of Merrimack Station's river valley location, emissions from the source may contribute to the monitors even when the wind direction is outside of the 90° sector. Therefore, the State determined that the 90° exclusion sector approach was not appropriate for this application, and selected an alternative approach to develop background levels. Specifically, the State compiled an ambient concentration database using the lower observed value for the two monitors' hourly values as representing regional background levels. This approach accounts for area and mobile sources and more distant sources that were not modeled explicitly but affect SO2 levels in the nonattainment area without also double-counting impacts from Merrimack Station, which was modeled explicitly. Using this approach, EPA finds the State's treatment of SO2 background levels to be suitable for the modeled attainment demonstration.

    I. Summary of Results

    The modeling analysis upon which the State relied in establishing a critical emission value for setting emission limits for Merrimack Station results in concentrations of no greater than 196.0 µg/m3, which is below the level of the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 196.4 µg/m3. EPA agrees with the State that these results indicate that emissions at the critical emission value for Merrimack Station provide for attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    V. Review of Other Plan Requirements A. Emissions Inventory

    The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to: (1) Estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. As noted above, the State must develop and submit to EPA a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO2 emissions in each nonattainment area, as well as any sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area. See CAA section 172(c)(3).

    In its plan, New Hampshire included a current emissions inventory for the nonattainment area and also for the three-county area of Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham Counties based on the 2011-2015 period. The State principally relied on 2014 as the most complete and representative record of annual SO2 emissions because it coincided with EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which includes a comprehensive inventory of all source types. The State allocated 2014 NEI version 1 emissions from the portion of each county within the nonattainment area using city- and town-level population (for area and non-road mobile sources) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT; for on-road mobile sources) statistics. The State included emissions from point sources (e.g., Merrimack Station) to the area based on location. The State calculated emissions for the area from some types of sources based on county-level emissions. A summary of the State's emissions inventories for 2011, 2014, and 2018 are presented in Table 1. Based on the State's inventory, of the 5,471 tons SO2 emitted in 2014 within the three county area, 1,480 tons were emitted within the nonattainment area. Merrimack Station emitted 1,044 tons SO2 in 2014. These emissions levels are much lower than historical emissions levels; for example, in 2011, Merrimack Station emitted 22,420 tons SO2.

    Table 1—Summary of New Hampshire's Inventory of Actual SO2 Emissions for the Central New Hampshire Area Year Hillsborough, Merrimack, and
  • Rockingham Counties
  • (tons)
  • Central New Hampshire nonattainment area
  • (tons)
  • Merrimack
  • Station
  • (tons)
  • 2011 24,934 22,398 22,420 2014 5,471 1,480 1,044 2018 (projected) 6,966 2,473 1,927

    New Hampshire also developed a projected emission inventory for the 2018 attainment year. The emissions projection indicates 1,927 tons of SO2 from Merrimack Station and a total of 2,473 tons of SO2 within the nonattainment area; however, these projections rely on a 90% reduction in SO2 emissions from Merrimack Station, which is less stringent than the at least 93.4% reduction incorporated into the permit New Hampshire issued for Merrimack Station on September 1, 2016, TP-0189.

    EPA agrees that the State's emissions inventories are appropriate because they rely on well-established and vetted estimates of emissions for the current period and attainment year, respectively.

    B. RACM/RACT

    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT)) and shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172, as measures that a state determines to be reasonably available and which contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable for existing sources in the area.

    In its January 31, 2017 SIP submittal, New Hampshire identified the operational and SO2 emission limits contained in Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189, as meeting RACM/RACT. New Hampshire's plan for attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area is based on the operational and emission limitations contained in Merrimack Station's permit. Specifically, Merrimack Station's permit limits SO2 emissions from the MK1 and MK2 boilers at Merrimack Station to 0.39 lb/MMBtu on a 7-boiler operating day rolling average (achieved through operation of the FGD), which the State demonstrated was comparably stringent to the critical emission value that provides for attainment of the NAAQS, as described in section IV.G.2 above. New Hampshire's nonattainment plan includes the SO2 control measures required by the permit, which was effective immediately upon issuance on September 1, 2016. New Hampshire has determined that these measures suffice to provide for timely attainment, and plans to incorporate relevant conditions contained in TP-0189 into Merrimack's title V operating permit (TV-0055).

    The air modeling analysis submitted to EPA during the development of the SO2 limits in TP-0189 confirms that these limits are protective of the NAAQS, as described in section IV. Because the modeling demonstrates attainment using emission limits contained in Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189, the State determined that controls for SO2 emissions at Merrimack Station are appropriate in the Central New Hampshire Area for purposes of attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, New Hampshire only completed a RACM/RACT analysis for Merrimack Station because the air quality modeling showed that the SO2 emission reductions required by TP-0189 will be sufficient to ensure that the nonattainment area achieves attainment with the SO2 NAAQS. EPA believes that New Hampshire's approach is consistent with EPA's April 2014 guidance, which indicates that “[a]ir agencies should consider all RACM/RACT that can be implemented in light of the attainment needs for the affected area(s).”

    The Central New Hampshire Area is currently showing an attaining design value for 2014-2016, and has been since the 2012-2014 period, which means that attainment of the NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable.

    Based on New Hampshire's modeling demonstration, which accounted for the SO2 emission limits contained in Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189, the Central New Hampshire Area is projected to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the 2018 attainment date. Because the area is currently attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes to find that the control strategy will ensure attainment of the NAAQS by the required attainment date.

    The State's plan also includes a broader discussion of the SO2 control strategy beyond Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189. Merrimack Station is also subject to requirements of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which promotes reductions at subject facilities of certain hazardous air pollutants, including hydrochloric acid; such reductions are achieved at Merrimack Station through the operation of the FGD system, which concurrently reduces emissions of SO2. New Hampshire also notes in its nonattainment plan the anticipated 73% reduction in SO2 emissions among upwind states subject to EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which will lessen the contribution of sources from other states into the nonattainment area in future years. New Hampshire also described emissions reductions at Schiller Station as part of statewide efforts to reduce SO2, as well as other state rules.

    EPA concurs with New Hampshire's approach and analysis, and proposes to conclude that the State has satisfied the requirement in section 172(c)(1) to adopt and submit all RACM as needed to attain the SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.

    C. New Source Review (NSR)

    EPA last approved New Hampshire's Env-A 618 nonattainment new source review rules on May 25, 2017 (82 FR 24057). These rules provide for appropriate new source review for SO2 sources undergoing construction or major modification in the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area without need for modification of the approved rules. Therefore, EPA concludes that this requirement has already been met for this area.

    D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

    New Hampshire concluded that the appropriate control measures were implemented as expeditiously as practicable in order to ensure attainment of the standard by the applicable attainment date. Specifically, the State implemented its main control strategy, i.e., establishment of federally enforceable SO2 emissions limits and operational conditions in TP-0189 for Merrimack Station in September 2016. New Hampshire concluded that this plan therefore provides for RFP in accordance with the approach to RFP described in EPA's guidance. EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the plan provides for RFP.

    E. Contingency Measures

    As discussed in our guidance, Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines contingency measures as such measures in a SIP that are to be implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP, or fails to attain the NAAQS, by the applicable attainment date. Contingency measures are to become effective without further action by the state or EPA, where the area has failed to (1) achieve RFP or (2) attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for the affected area. These control measures are to consist of other available control measures that are not included in the control strategy for the nonattainment area SIP. EPA guidance describes special features of SO2 planning that influence the suitability of alternative means of addressing the requirement in section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures for SO2. Because SO2 control measures are by definition based on what is directly and quantifiably necessary emissions controls, any violations of the NAAQS are likely related to source violations of a source's permit terms. Therefore, an appropriate means of satisfying this requirement for SO2 is for the state to have a comprehensive enforcement program that identifies sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement.

    For its contingency program, New Hampshire proposed to continue to operate a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and undertake aggressive compliance and enforcement actions, including expedited procedures for establishing consent agreements pending the adoption of the revised SIP. New Hampshire's program for enforcement of SIP measures for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS was approved by EPA on June 15, 2016. See 81 FR 44542. As EPA stated in its April 2014 guidance, EPA believes that this approach continues to be a valid approach for the implementation of contingency measures to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    Based on the contingency measures identified by the State in its plan submittal, EPA believes that New Hampshire's plan provides for satisfying the contingency measure requirement. EPA concurs and proposes to approve New Hampshire's plan for meeting the contingency measure requirement in this manner.

    VI. Additional Elements of New Hampshire's Submittal A. Conformity

    The State addresses general conformity and transportation conformity requirements as they apply to the nonattainment area. Generally, as set forth in section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, conformity requires that actions by federal agencies do not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS. General conformity applies to federal actions, other than certain highway and transportation projects, if the action takes place in a nonattainment area or maintenance area (i.e., an area which submitted a maintenance plan that meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and has been redesignated to attainment) for ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, or SO2. EPA's General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93.150 to 93.165) establishes the criteria and procedures for determining if a federal action conforms to the SIP. With respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, federal agencies are expected to continue to estimate emissions for conformity analyses in the same manner as they estimated emissions for conformity analyses under the previous NAAQS for SO2. EPA's General Conformity Rule includes the basic requirement that a federal agency's general conformity analysis be based on the latest and most accurate emission estimation techniques available (40 CFR 93.159(b)). When updated and improved emissions estimation techniques become available, EPA expects the federal agency to use these techniques. New Hampshire addresses general conformity under SIP-approved state rule Env-A 1500.

    Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administration projects are subject to transportation conformity rather than general conformity requirements, with some exceptions. New Hampshire asserts in its plan that due to minimal impact on SO2 from combustion of gasoline and diesel fuels, transportation conformity rules do not generally apply to SO2 unless the EPA Regional Administrator or the state air director finds that its transportation-related SO2 emissions are a significant contributor to fine particulate matter as a precursor. This reasoning is consistent with EPA's April 2014 guidance and EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire's plan meets our guidance and rule requirements with regard to general and transportation conformity.

    B. Changes in Allowable Emissions

    The State quantified the changes in allowable emissions expected to result from implementation of its nonattainment area plan. To do so, the State compared allowable annual emissions at Merrimack Station prior to installation of the FGD control system with those after the system was operational and with those with the conditions of TP-0189 in place (i.e., allowable emissions under the plan). Prior to the effective date of TP-0189, under the conditions of TP-0008 (see 77 FR 50602), Merrimack Station was permitted to operate the MK1 boiler through the bypass stack (i.e., now the emergency stack) for no more than 840 hours during any consecutive 12-month period and thereby bypass SO2 controls; the MK2 boiler is unable to operate through the bypass stack. The State quantified emissions from these boilers which were allowed prior to installation of the FGD and the effective date of TP-0008. Then, the State quantified emissions from the MK1 and MK2 boilers under the provisions of TP-0008 (i.e., using a 90% emissions reduction). Finally, the State quantified emissions for MK1 and MK2 allowed under the provisions of TP-0189, i.e., assuming an average of 0.39 lb/MMBtu. A summary of these allowable emissions is presented in Table 2. According to the plan, allowable annual SO2 emissions prior to the FGD installation (and the conditions of TP-0008) were 82,537 tons, compared to 8,254 tons under the permit conditions of TP-0008, and 8,047 tons under the nonattainment plan (namely the SO2 emissions limit for NAAQS compliance included in TP-0189). That is, the State expects implementation of the plan to allow 207 tons fewer than prior to plan implementation, and 74,490 tons fewer than prior to installation and operation of the FGD.

    Table 2—Summary of Annual Allowable SO2 Emissions for the MK1 and MK2 Boilers at Merrimack Station Total allowable emissions Difference in allowable emissions from prior to TP-0008
  • (tons)
  • Difference in allowable emissions from prior to TP-0189
  • (tons)
  • Prior to TP-0008 82,537 With TP-0008 8,254 a−74,283 Nonattainment Area Plan (With TP-0189) 8,047 a−74,489 a b−206 a Reported negative emissions values for differences indicate emission reductions. b New Hampshire reported a difference of 206 tons compared with the numerical difference of 207 tons between the reported total allowable emissions. This slight difference can be attributed to rounding.
    C. Air Quality Trends

    New Hampshire also included trends in ambient monitoring data for the nonattainment area. In its nonattainment plan, the State shows that ambient concentrations in the area have dropped markedly since 2011, when Merrimack Station began operation of its FGD system under the SIP-approved conditions of TP-0008, and are now below 75 ppb, the level of the NAAQS. The monitored design value for the Pembroke monitor (AQS number 33-013-1006), consistently the highest in the area, was 23 ppb for 2012 to 2014, and 20 ppb for both 2013 to 2015 and 2014 to 2016.

    D. Compliance With Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA

    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires nonattainment SIPs to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. While the provisions of 110(a)(2) address various topics, EPA's past determinations suggest that only the section 110(a)(2) criteria linked with a particular area's designation and classification are relevant to section 172(c)(7). This nonattainment SIP submittal satisfies all applicable criteria of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, as evidenced by the State's nonattainment new source review program which addresses 110(a)(2)(I), the included control strategy, and the associated emissions limits which are relevant to 110(a)(2)(A). In addition, EPA approved the State's SO2 infrastructure SIP on May 25, 2017 (82 FR 24057). EPA will take action in a separate rulemaking on the remaining portion of the State's infrastructure SIP, the so-called SO2 “good neighbor” or “interstate transport” SIP to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is proposing to conclude that the State has meet the requirements of 172(c)(7) of the CAA.

    E. Equivalency Techniques

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

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

    VII. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA has determined that New Hampshire's SO2 nonattainment plan meets the applicable requirements of sections 110, 172, 191, and 192 of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's January 31, 2017 SIP submission for attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area and for meeting other nonattainment area planning requirements. This SO2 nonattainment plan includes New Hampshire's attainment demonstration for the SO2 nonattainment area. The nonattainment area plan also addresses requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, enforceable emission limits and control measures, base-year and projection-year emission inventories, and contingency measures.

    In the January 31, 2017 submittal to EPA, New Hampshire included the applicable monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements contained in Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189, to demonstrate how compliance with Merrimack Station's SO2 emission limit will be achieved and determined. EPA is proposing to approve into the New Hampshire SIP the provisions of Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189, that constitute the SO2 operating and emission limits and their associated monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. EPA is proposing to approve these provisions into the State's SIP through incorporation by reference, as described in section VIII, below. EPA's analysis is discussed in this proposed rulemaking.

    EPA is not proposing to remove from the existing New Hampshire SIP, Table 4, items 6, 8, and 10 contained in Merrimack Station's July 2011 permit, TP-0008, because EPA has not received a request from the State to do so. See 52.1520(d) EPA-approved State Source specific requirements. However, EPA considers those provisions to be superseded by the conditions of TP-0189, which are more stringent, and which are to be incorporated into the SIP in this proposed action. Specifically, two of the provisions, items 6 and 8 from Table 4, relate to SO2 emissions limits that have been superseded by Merrimack Station's September 2016 permit, TP-0189. Item 10 from Table 4 has also been superseded by Merrimack Station's September 2016 permit, TP-0189, in that the existing SIP provision allowed operation of one of Merrimack Station's two boilers, MK1, for up to 840 hours in any consecutive 12-month period through the emergency bypass stack, i.e., not through the FGD. Each of the corresponding provisions of Merrimack Station's September 2016 permit, TP-0189, are more stringent than those existing SIP provisions. EPA is taking public comments for thirty days following the publication of this proposed action in the Federal Register. We will take all comments into consideration in our final action.

    VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference certain federally enforceable provisions of Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189, effective on September 1, 2016. Specifically, the following provisions of that permit are proposed to be incorporated by reference: Items 1, 2, and 3 in Table 4 (“Operating and Emission Limits”); items 1 and 2 in Table 5 (“Monitoring and Testing Requirements”); items 1 and 2 in Table 6 (“Recordkeeping Requirements”); and items 1 and 2 in Table 7 (“Reporting Requirements”).

    EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 15, 2017. Ken Moraff, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20721 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213; FRL-9968-67-OAR] RIN 2060-AT43 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is proposing this action to correct an editing oversight that lead to a potential conflict in a prior rulemaking as to whether or not containers holding two pounds or less of non-exempt substitute refrigerants for use in motor vehicle air conditioning that are not equipped with a self-sealing valve can be sold to persons that are not certified technicians, provided those small cans were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. This action clarifies that those small cans may continue to be sold to persons that are not certified as technicians under sections 608 or 609 of the Clean Air Act. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is publishing this action as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by October 30, 2017. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 5, 2017. If a public hearing is requested, the hearing will be held on or around October 13, 2017. If a hearing is held, it will take place at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC. EPA will post a notice on our Web site, www.epa.gov/section608, announcing further information should a hearing take place.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Kemme by regular mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone: (202) 566-0511; or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Why is EPA issuing this Proposed Rule?

    On November 18, 2016, EPA published a rule finalizing a restriction that non-exempt substitute refrigerants may only be sold to technicians certified under sections 608 or 609 of the CAA (81 FR 82280). In the case of refrigerant for use in motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC), EPA finalized the exemption for the sale of certain small cans of non-ozone-depleting substitutes with a self-sealing valve to allow the do-it-yourself community to continue servicing their personal vehicles. However, the Agency did not finalize a sell-through provision as proposed. Instead, EPA intended to allow the continued sale of small cans without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, and described that intent in the preamble to the final rule. See 81 FR 82280, 82342.

    These intentions were also expressed in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2), which was revised in the November 2016 rule to state: “Self-sealing valve specifications. This provision applies starting January 1, 2018, for all containers holding two pounds or less of non-exempt substitute refrigerant for use in an MVAC that are manufactured or imported on or after that date. (i) Each container holding two pounds or less of non-exempt substitute refrigerant for use in an MVAC must be equipped with a single self-sealing valve that automatically closes and seals when not dispensing refrigerant . . . .” However, because of an editing error, another provision, 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix), contains text that could be construed as contradicting the Agency's clearly expressed intent to allow non-technicians to purchase, and retailers to sell, small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC that were manufactured or imported before the January 1, 2018, compliance date irrespective of whether they have a self-sealing valve.

    The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute and the Auto Care Association inquired about whether the language in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix) effectively negates the provision in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2) and the preamble discussion showing EPA's intention to allow small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, to continue to be sold without self-sealing valves. EPA is proposing this rule to revise the regulatory text so that persons in possession of small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, can be assured that they will be able to sell off their existing inventories without disruption.

    EPA has published a direct final rule making identical edits to the regulatory text as those proposed here in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have further explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. For additional information on the action being taken, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. In that case, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. EPA is not proposing, and is not seeking comment on, any changes to the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F other than the proposed revisions discussed in this notice. For further information on how to submit comments, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    II. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include entities that distribute or sell small cans refrigerant for use in MVAC. Regulated entities include, but are not limited to, manufacturers and distributors of small cans of refrigerant (NAICS codes 325120, 441310, 447110) such as automotive parts and accessories stores and industrial gas manufacturers.

    This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization could be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0256. These changes do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulations.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action clarifies that small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians even if they are not equipped with a self-sealing valve, so long as those small cans are manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. This action clarifies that those small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

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

    This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. This action clarifies that those small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians. The documentation for this decision is contained in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213, where EPA's assessment of the underlying regulatory changes that necessitated this correction found no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 82 as follows:

    PART 82—PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    2. In § 82.154, revise paragraph (c)(1)(ix) to read as follows:
    § 82.154 Prohibitions.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ix) The non-exempt substitute refrigerant is intended for use in an MVAC and is sold in a container designed to hold two pounds or less of refrigerant, has a unique fitting, and, if manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2018, has a self-sealing valve that complies with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

    [FR Doc. 2017-20838 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 187 Thursday, September 28, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 22, 2017.

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

    Comments regarding this information collection received by October 30, 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), [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.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Study of Non-Response to the School Meals Application Verification Process.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-New.

    Summary of Collection: The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) provide subsidized lunches and breakfasts to millions of students each school day. Students are certified eligible to receive free or reduced-price (F/RP) meals through application or direct certification. When eligibility is determined using an application process, school districts must annually verify eligibility of children from a sample of household applications for that school year, unless the State agency assumes responsibility for verification. This study will examine the accuracy of district verification procedures.

    Need and Use of the Information: Collecting this data will help FNS to understand the approaches districts take to verification, understand the accuracy of the verification process and the results it produces in the context of potential changes, and help to identify potential improvements to the verification process.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Government; Individuals or Households.

    Number of Respondents: 2,144.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 5,535.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20762 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Inviting Applications for Technical Assistance and Training Grants AGENCY:

    Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA).

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is accepting applications for the Technical Assistance and Training Grant Program (TAT). RUS is providing an amount of funding to be determined to provide technical assistance and training grants for disaster recovery (TAT/DR) to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities serving areas subject to Presidential disaster declarations in effect on or after the date of this notice which are beyond the scope or capacity of existing grant agreements or contracts with the RUS and do not duplicate other federal assistance to water and sewer utilities in the affected areas. No single award will exceed $600,000 and more than one grant may be made. Expenses incurred in developing applications will be at the applicant's risk. Once funding for TAT has been determined, RUS will publish the program funding level on the Rural Development Web site https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/water-waste-disposal-technical-assistance-training-grants.

    DATES:

    Applications for TAT/DR grant(s) must be received by October 18, 2017. Reminder of competitive grant application deadline: Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov no later than 20 days after this announcement appears in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit electronic grant applications at http://www.grants.gov/ (Grants.gov), following the instructions you find on that Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anita O'Brien, Loan Specialist, Water Program Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, by email at [email protected] or by telephone: (202) 690-3789.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview

    Federal Agency: Rural Utilities Service (RUS).

    Funding Opportunity Title: Technical Assistance and Training for Disaster Recovery (TAT/DR).

    Announcement Type: Funding Level Announcement and Solicitation of Applications.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1926 (a)(14); Pub. L. 109-97, 119 Stat. 2120.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.761.

    Dates: You must submit completed application for a TAT/DR grant before October 18, 2017.

    Reminder of competitive grant application deadline: Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov no later than 20 days after this announcement appears in the Federal Register to be eligible for funding.

    Items in Supplementary Information

    I. Funding Opportunity: Brief Introduction to the Technical Assistance and Training for Disaster Recovery (TAT/DR) Grants.

    Drinking water and wastewater systems are basic and vital to both health and economic development. With dependable water facilities and environmentally sound waste disposal, rural communities can attract families and businesses that will invest in the community and improve the quality of life for all residents. Without dependable water and wastewater facilities, the communities cannot sustain economic development. RUS supports the sound development of rural communities and the growth of our economy without endangering the environment. RUS provides financial and technical assistance to help communities bring safe drinking water and sanitary, environmentally sound waste disposal facilities to rural Americans in greatest need.

    The Technical Assistance and Training (TAT) Grant Program has been established under 7 CFR part 1775 to assist communities with water or wastewater systems through free technical assistance and/or training provided by the grant recipients. Qualified private non-profit organizations will receive TAT grant funds to identify and evaluate solutions to water and waste disposal problems in rural areas, assist applicants in preparing applications for water and waste grants made at the State level offices, and improve operation and maintenance of existing water and waste disposal facilities in rural areas.

    II. Federal Award Information: Available funds, maximum amounts; $1,000,000

    III. Eligibility Information: Who is eligible, what kinds of projects are eligible, what criteria determine basic eligibility

    IV. Application and Submission Information: Where to apply; what constitutes a completed application; how to submit applications; deadlines; and, items that are eligible

    V. Application Review Information: Considerations and preferences; scoring criteria; review standards; and selection information

    VI. Federal Award Administration Information: Award notice information and award recipient reporting requirements

    VII. Agency Contacts: Web, phone, email, and contact name

    VIII. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    I. Funding Opportunity

    Drinking water and sewer systems are basic and vital to public health, the environment and economic development. Hurricanes, floods, forest fires and other natural disasters have severely damaged water systems in multiple states. Without dependable water supply, rural communities in these states will not attract families and businesses to return and invest in rural disaster damaged communities.

    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) supports rural prosperity, quality of life, economic development and stewardship of the environment. RUS provides financial and technical assistance to help communities bring safe drinking water and sanitary, environmentally sound waste disposal facilities to rural Americans in greatest need.

    The additional funding made available under this notice for TAT/DR grants will allow rural communities to rebuild water and sewer infrastructure damaged by recent disasters and enhance the security of the RUS loan portfolio. Qualified private, non-profit organizations with expertise and a record of experience in providing technical assistance and training to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities may apply to receive a grant to provide technical assistance to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities in areas covered by a Presidential disaster declaration on or after the date of this notice. Grants are for disaster recovery related technical assistance, including such services as helping eligible rural water and sewer utilities complete Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) claims, and file insurance recovery claims, address and cure outstanding delinquencies, and assisting new and returning RUS applicants prepare applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants as needed.

    II. Award Information

    Available funds: To be determined.

    III. Eligibility Information A. What are the basic eligibility requirements for applying?

    An organization is eligible to receive a TAT grant if it:

    a. Is a private, non-profit organization that has tax-exempt status from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

    b. Is legally established and located within one of the following:

    • A state within the United States

    • the District of Columbia

    • the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

    • a United States territory

    c. Has the legal capacity and authority to carry out the grant purpose;

    d. Has a proven record of successfully providing technical assistance and/or training to rural areas;

    e. Has capitalization acceptable to the Agency, and is composed of at least 51 percent of the outstanding interest or membership being citizens of the United States or individuals who reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;

    f. Has no delinquent debt to the federal government or no outstanding judgments to repay a federal debt;

    g. Demonstrates that it possesses the financial, technical, and managerial capability to comply with federal and State laws and requirements;

    h. Contracts with a nonaffiliated organization for not more than 49 percent of the grant to provide the proposed assistance.

    (For more specific information see 7 CFR 1775.35.)

    The applying entity (Applicant) must:

    1. Be a private, national, non-profit organization that has tax-exempt status from the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

    2. Be legally established and located within The United States of America;

    3. Have the legal capacity and authority to carry out the grant purposes;

    4. Have no delinquent debt to the Federal Government or no outstanding judgments to repay a Federal debt;

    5. Have proven expertise and experience delivering technical assistance and training to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities.

    B. What are the basic eligibility requirements for a project?

    The qualified applicant must provide technical assistance to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities in rural areas covered by a Presidential disaster declaration existing on or after the date of this notice on disaster recovery related matters meeting the objectives and purposes of the program under 7 CFR part 1775.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    A. Where to get application information: http://www.grants.gov.

    B. Applicants will need a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. You must provide your DUNS number on the SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” To verify that your organization has a DUNS number or to receive one at no cost, call the dedicated toll-free request line at 1-866-705-5711 or access the Web site http://www.dunandbradstreet.com. You will need the following information when requesting a DUNS number:

    a. Legal Name of the Applicant;

    b. Headquarters name and address of the Applicant;

    c. The names under which the Applicant is doing business as (dba) or other name by which the organization is commonly recognized;

    d. Physical address of the Applicant;

    e. Mailing address (if separate from headquarters and/or physical address) of the Applicant;

    f. Telephone number;

    g. Contact name and title;

    h. Number of employees at the physical location.

    C. The application and any materials sent with it become Federal records by law and cannot be returned to you.

    D. You must file an electronic application at the Web site: www.grants.gov. You must be registered with Grants.gov before you can submit a grant application. If you have not used Grants.gov before, you will need to register with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR) and the Credential Provider. You will need a DUNS number to access or register at any of the services. The registration processes may take several business days to complete. Follow the instructions at Grants.gov for registering and submitting an electronic application. RUS may request original signatures on electronically submitted documents later.

    The CCR registers your organization, housing your organizational information and allowing Grants.gov to use it to verify your identity. You may register for the CCR by calling the CCR Assistance Center at 1-888-227-2423 or you may register online at: http://www.ccr.gov.

    The Credential Provider gives you or your representative a username and password, as part of the Federal Government's e-Authentication to ensure a secure transaction. You will need the username and password when you register with Grants.gov or use Grants.gov to submit your application. You must register with the Central Provider through Grants.gov: https://apply.grants.gov/OrcRegister.

    E. What constitutes a completed application?

    1. To be considered for assistance, you must be an eligible entity and must submit a complete application by the deadline date. You must consult the cost principles and general administrative requirements for grants pertaining to their organizational type in order to prepare the budget and complete other parts of the application. You also must demonstrate compliance (or intent to comply), through certification or other means, with a number of public policy requirements as demonstrated in the forms below.

    2. Applicants must complete and submit the following forms to apply for a Technical Assistance and Training grant:

    (a) Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance”

    (b) Standard Form 424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs”

    (c) Standard Form 424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs”

    (d) Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activity”

    (e) AD-3030, “Representations Regarding felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicant”

    (f) AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicant”

    (g) Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement”

    (h) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement (Under Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964)

    (i) Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable, applicant must include approved cost agreement rate schedule)

    (j) Certification regarding Forest Service grant.

    3. All applications shall be accompanied by the following supporting documentation in concise written narrative form:

    (a) Evidence of applicant's legal existence and authority.

    (b) Evidence of tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

    (c) A short statement of applicant's experience in providing services similar to those proposed.

    (d) A brief description of successfully completed projects including the need that was identified and objectives accomplished.

    (e) The latest financial information to show the applicant's financial capacity to carry out the proposed work.

    (f) A list of proposed services to be provided.

    (g) An estimated breakdown of costs (direct and indirect) including those to be funded by grantee as well as other sources. Sufficient detail should be provided to permit the approval official to determine reasonableness, applicability, and eligibility.

    (h) Evidence that a Financial Management System is in place or proposed.

    (i) A description of national reach and capability.

    (ii) A description of the type of technical assistance and/or training to be provided and the tasks to be contracted.

    (iii) A description of how the effectiveness and results of the proposed TAT/DR project will be measured.

    (iv) A clear explanation of how the proposed services differ from other similar services being provided in the same area and measures to be taken to avoid duplication of federal effort.

    (v) Number of personnel on staff or to be contracted to provide the service and their experience with similar projects.

    (vi) A statement indicating the maximum number of months it would take to complete the project.

    (vii) Explanation of the cost effectiveness of project.

    4. Applicants must also submit a flexible work plan/project proposal that will outline the project in sufficient detail to provide a reader with a clear understanding of how the proposed TAT/DR project will address the technical assistance needs of RUS eligible water and sewer utilities in affected rural disaster areas that exist at the time of this notice or that may emerge during the term of the grant agreement.

    5. The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other federal statutes, including but not limited to the following:

    i. Debarment and suspension information is required in accordance with 2 CFR part 417 (Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension) supplemented by 2 CFR part 180, if it applies. The section heading is “What information must I provide before entering into a covered transaction with the Federal Government?” located at 2 CFR 180.335. It is part of OMB's Guidance for Grants and Agreements concerning Government-wide Debarment and Suspension.

    ii. All of your organization's known workplaces by including the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the award takes place. Workplace identification is required under the drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B of 2 CFR part 421, which adopts the Government-wide implementation (2 CFR part 182) of the Drug-Free Workplace Act.

    iii. 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Assistance Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards).

    iv. 2 CFR part 182 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)) and 2 CFR part 421 (Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)).

    v. Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to http://www.LEP.gov.

    6. Unique entity identifier and System for Award Management (SAM). The applicant for a grant must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as part of an application. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for the DUNS number. The applicant can obtain the DUNS number free of charge by calling Dun and Bradstreet. Please see http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform for more information on how to obtain a DUNS number or how to verify your organization's number.

    In accordance with 2 CFR part 25, whether applying electronically or by paper, the applicant must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application. Applicants may register for the SAM at https://www.sam.gov/portal/SAM/#1. The SAM registration must remain active with current information at all times while RUS is considering an application or while a Federal Grant award or loan is active. To remain registered in the SAM database the applicant must review and update the information in the SAM database annually from date of initial registration or from the date of the last update. The applicant must ensure that the information in the database is current, accurate, and complete.

    V. Application Review Information

    A. RUS will acknowledge the application's receipt by email to the applicant. The application will be reviewed for completeness to determine if it contains all of the items required. If the application is incomplete or ineligible, RUS will return it to the Applicant with an explanation. The RUS reserves the right to request additional information once an application is determined to be complete to address specific disaster recovery needs that are known or anticipated at the time of evaluation or to minimize the risk of duplication of other federal efforts. The RUS grant offer to a successful applicant will be based on the submitted application and may be more narrowly tailored than the submitted application to meet rural community needs at the time of the offer or over the course of the grant period.

    B. A review team, composed of at least two members, will evaluate all applications and proposals. They will make overall recommendations based on factors such as eligibility, application completeness, and conformity to application requirements. They will score the applications based on criteria in paragraph C of this section.

    C. All applications that are complete and eligible will be scored and ranked competitively. The categories for scoring criteria used are the following:

    Scoring criteria Points 1. Scope of Assistance Up to 15. 2. Degree of expertise Up to 15. 3. Applicant Resource (staff and contract personnel) Up to 10. 4. Goals/Objectives: Goals/objectives are clearly defined and tied to need, results and measurable outcomes Up to 10. 5. Extent to which the work plan clearly articulates a well thought out approach to accomplishing objectives; and clearly defines how the applicant would respond to communities served by the TAT/DR grant Up to 20. 6. Financial Controls Up to 5. 7. Type of technical assistance applicant is providing Up to 20. 8. Project duration Up to 5. VI. Award Administration Information

    A. RUS will rank all qualifying applications by their final score. Applications will be selected for funding based on the highest scores. No grant will exceed $600,000. The agency expects to award a small number of grants under this notice. The agency reserves the right to make no grant awards if all applications are incomplete and/or scorebelow 65 points. Each applicant will be notified via email of the agency's funding decision.

    B. In making its decision about your application, RUS may determine that your application is:

    1. Eligible and selected for funding;

    2. Eligible and offered fewer funds than requested;

    3. Eligible but not selected for funding; or

    4. Ineligible for the grant.

    C. Given the exigency of the need to respond to recent hurricanes, tornados, floods, forest fires and other presidentially declared emergencies, appeals of the funding decisions under this notice shall be made exclusively to the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service within 10 business days of receiving email notice of the funding decision. The Administrator's decision shall be final and non-reviewable by the National Appeals Division.

    D. Applicants selected for funding will complete a grant agreement suitable to RUS, which outlines the terms and conditions of the grant award. Pursuant to the grant agreement, grant funds may be released over the course of the grant period in reimbursement for the performance of eligible, approved activities which do not duplicate similar federal efforts or tasks. The grant agreement may also include reporting and pre-approval requirements consistent with 7 CFR part 1775 which if not met, may result in a delay in reimbursement, disallowance of expense or a suspension of the grant.

    E. Grantees will be reimbursed as follows:

    1. SF-270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” will be completed by the grantee and submitted to either the State or National Office not more frequently than monthly.

    2. Upon receipt of a properly completed SF-270, payment will ordinarily be made within 30 days.

    F. Any change in the scope of the project, budget adjustments of more than 10 percent of the total budget, or any other significant change in the project must be reported to and approved by the approval official by written amendment to the Grant Agreement. Any change not approved may be cause for termination of the grant.

    G. Project reporting.

    1. Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work by time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved.

    2. SF-269, “Financial Status Report (short form),” and a project performance activity report will be required of all grantees on a quarterly basis, due 30 days after the end of each quarter.

    3. A final project performance report will be required with the last SF-269 due 90 days after the end of the last quarter in which the project is completed. The final report may serve as the last quarterly report.

    4. All grantees are to submit an original of each report to the National Office. The project performance reports should detail, in a narrative format, activities that have transpired for the specific time period.

    H. The grantee will provide an audit report or financial statements in accordance with Uniform Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.

    VII. Agency Contacts

    A. Web site: http://www.usda.gov/rus/water. The RUS' Web site maintains up-to-date resources and contact information for Technical Assistance and Training Grants program.

    B. Phone: 202-720-9586.

    C. Email: [email protected]

    D. Main point of contact: Anita O'Brien, Loan Specialist, Water and Environmental Programs, Water Programs Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    VIII. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) Email: [email protected] USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Christopher A. McLean, Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20852 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-39-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 214—Lenoir County, North Carolina; Authorization of Export-Only Production Activity; Nutkao USA, Inc.; (Hazelnut Cocoa Spread); Battleboro, North Carolina

    On May 24, 2017, Nutkao USA, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed export-only production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 214 in Battleboro, North Carolina.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 26663-26664, June 8, 2017). On September 21, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The export-only production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20815 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-35-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 144—Brunswick, Georgia; Authorization of Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Passenger Motor Vehicles); Brunswick, Georgia

    On May 8, 2017, the Brunswick and Glynn County Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 144, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, within Site 2 of FTZ 144.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 25238-25239, June 1, 2017). On September 5, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and further subject to a restriction that carpets of man-made fibers would be admitted to the FTZ in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20817 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-33-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 50—Long Beach, California; Authorization of Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Passenger Motor Vehicles); Long Beach, California

    On May 8, 2017, the Port of Long Beach, California, grantee of FTZ 50, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, within Site 41 of FTZ 50.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 25239-25240, June 1, 2017). On September 5, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and further subject to a restriction that carpets of man-made fibers would be admitted to the FTZ in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20809 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-37-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 114—Peoria, Illinois; Authorization of Production Activity; Bell Sports, Inc., Subzone 114F (Sports Equipment), Rantoul, Illinois

    On May 15, 2017, Bell Sports, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 114F, in Rantoul, Illinois.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 25597, June 2, 2017). On September 12, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and subject to a restriction requiring that polypropylene webbing for bike helmets be admitted to the subzone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20805 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-36-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64—Jacksonville, Florida; Authorization of Production Activity; Hans-Mill Corporation (Household Trash Cans and Plastic Storage Totes), Jacksonville, Florida

    On May 10, 2017, Hans-Mill Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 64D, in Jacksonville, Florida.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 25596, June 2, 2017). On September 7, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20818 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-83-2017] Approval of Subzone Expansion; Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc.; Sacramento, California

    On June 1, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Sacramento-Yolo Port District, grantee of FTZ 143, requesting an expansion of Subzone 143D, subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 143, on behalf of Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc., in Sacramento, California.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 28628, June 23, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to expand Subzone 143D was approved on September 13, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 143's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20819 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-11-2017] Approval of Subzone Status; LT Autos, LLC, Ponce, Puerto Rico

    On January 31, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163, on behalf of LT Autos, LLC, in Ponce, Puerto Rico. The application was amended on June 28, 2017.

    The amended application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notices in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 9370-9371, February 6, 2017; 82 FR 32530-32531, July 14, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the amended application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the amended application to establish Subzone 163J was approved on September 7, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 163's 923.36-acre activation limit.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20808 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-34-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 74—Baltimore, Maryland; Authorization of Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Passenger Motor Vehicles); Baltimore, Maryland

    On May 8, 2017, the City of Baltimore, Maryland, grantee of FTZ 74, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, within Site 6 of FTZ 74.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 25240, June 1, 2017). On September 5, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and further subject to a restriction that carpets of man-made fibers would be admitted to the FTZ in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20810 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-59-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 47—Boone County, Kentucky; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Valeo North America, Inc.; (Automotive Clutch and Compressor Assemblies); Winchester, Kentucky

    Valeo North America, Inc. (Valeo) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Winchester, Kentucky within FTZ 47. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 19, 2017.

    The applicant has also submitted a separate application for FTZ designation at the Valeo facility under FTZ 47. The facility is used for the final assembly of clutch and compressor components for the automotive industry. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Valeo from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Valeo would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Compressor assemblies for motor vehicles; and, electromagnetic clutch assemblies (duty rate ranges from free to 3.1%). Valeo would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Electromagnetic clutch assemblies; compressor bodies and housings; compressor coils; rotors; compressor armatures; compressor fittings; stainless steel bolts; stainless steel screws; and, electromagnetic shims and snap rings (duty rate ranges from free to 8.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 7, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20816 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-151-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone 123—Denver, Colorado; Application for Subzone; Lockheed Martin Corporation, Space Systems Company, Littleton, Colorado

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City and County of Denver, Colorado, grantee of FTZ 123, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Lockheed Martin Corporation, Space Systems Company (Lockheed Martin), located in Littleton, Colorado. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on September 25, 2017.

    The proposed subzone (86.35 acres) is located at 12257 South Wadsworth Boulevard, Littleton, Colorado. A notification of proposed production activity will be submitted and will be published separately for public comment. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 123.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 7, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 22, 2017.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at [email protected] or (202) 482-0862.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20803 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-110-2017] Approval of Subzone Expansion; Lam Research Corporation, Fremont and Livermore, California

    On July 20, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of San Jose, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting an expansion of Subzone 18F, subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 18, on behalf of Lam Research Corporation, in Fremont and Livermore, California.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 34475-3476, July 25, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to expand Subzone 18F was approved on September 14, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 143's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20807 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-88-2017] Approval of Subzone Status; BGM America, Inc. Marion, South Carolina

    On June 13, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Richland-Lexington Airport District, grantee of FTZ 127, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 127, on behalf of BGM America, Inc., in Marion, South Carolina.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 30821, July 3, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 127C was approved on September 8, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 127's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20806 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-150-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone 47—Boone County, Kentucky; Application for Subzone, Valeo North America, Inc., Winchester, Kentucky

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Greater Cincinnati FTZ, Inc., grantee of FTZ 47, requesting subzone status for the facility of Valeo North America, Inc. (Valeo), located in Winchester, Kentucky. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on September 25, 2017.

    The proposed subzone (12 acres) is located at 1175 Enterprise Drive, Winchester. A notification of proposed production activity has been submitted and is being processed under 15 CFR 400.37 (Doc. B-59-2017). The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 47.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 7, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 22, 2017.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20802 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-032-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 86—Tacoma, Washington; Authorization of Export-Only Production Activity, McFarland Cascade Holdings, Inc./Stella-Jones Corporation (Treaded Canadian Softwood Lumber, Plywood, Agriculture Posts, and Landscape Tinders); Tacoma, Washington

    On May 15, 2017, McFarland Cascade Holdings, Inc./Stella-Jones Corporation (McFarland Cascade) submitted a notification of proposed export-only production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ Subzone 86H in Tacoma, Washington.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 26663, June 8, 2017). On September 12, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The export-only production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20814 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Upcoming Secretary-Led International Trade Administration Multi-Sector Trade Mission to China AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA) is announcing an additional upcoming trade mission that will be recruited, organized, and implemented by ITA. The mission is:

    • Secretary-Led Multi-Sector Trade Mission to China—mid-November 2017

    A summary of the mission is found below. Application information and more detailed mission information, including the commercial setting and sector information, can be found at the trade mission Web site: http://export.gov/trademissions.

    For each mission, recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register, posting on the Commerce Department trade mission calendar (http://export.gov/trademissions) and other Internet Web sites, press releases to general and trade media, direct mail, broadcast fax, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows.

    The Following Conditions for Participation Will Be Used for This Mission

    An applicant must sign and submit a completed application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the represented company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If an incomplete application form is submitted or the information and material submitted does not demonstrate how the applicant satisfies the participation criteria, the Department of Commerce may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the application.

    Each applicant must:

    • Identify whether the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content. In cases where the U.S. content does not exceed 50 percent, especially where the applicant intends to pursue investment in major project opportunities, the following factors may be considered in determining whether the applicant's participation in the Mission is in the U.S. national interest:

    ○ U.S. materials and equipment content;

    ○ U.S. labor content;

    ○ Contribution to the U.S. technology base, including conduct of research and development in the United States;

    ○ Repatriation of profits to the U.S. economy;

    ○ Potential for follow-on business that would benefit the U.S. economy;

    • Certify that the export of their products and services is in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;

    • Certify that it has identified to the Department of Commerce any business matter pending before any bureau or office in the Departments of Commerce;

    • Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Departments of Commerce; and

    • Certify that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.

    In the case of a trade association, the applicant must certify that each firm or service provider to be represented by the association can make the above certifications.

    The Following Selection Criteria Will Be Used for This Mission

    Selection will be based on the following criteria, listed in decreasing order of importance:

    • Suitability of the company's (or in the case of a trade association, represented company's) products or services to the Chinese market and the likelihood of increased exports or business interests in China as a result of this mission;

    • Consistency of the company's (or in the case of a trade association, represented company's) goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission;

    • Rank/seniority of the applicant's designated representative;

    • Current or pending major project/transaction/agreement/investment with Chinese entities or organizations with a capacity to increase U.S. exports to China; and

    • Demonstrated export experience (in the case of a trade association, of the companies being represented) to China and/or other foreign markets.

    The balance of entities participating in the mission with respect to type, size, location, sector or subsector may also be considered during the review process.

    Referrals from political organizations and any information, including on the application, containing references to political contributions or other partisan political activities will be excluded from the application and will not be considered during the selection process. The sender will be notified of these exclusions.

    Trade Mission Participation Fees

    If and when an applicant is selected to participate on a particular mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the amount of the designated participation fee below is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have 5 business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.

    Participants selected for a trade mission will be expected to pay for the cost of personal expenses, including, but not limited to, international travel, lodging, meals, transportation, communication, and incidentals, unless otherwise noted. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. In the event that a mission is cancelled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a cancelled mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in anticipation of the mission.

    If a visa is required to travel on a particular mission, applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain business visas.

    Trade Mission members participate in trade missions and undertake mission-related travel at their own risk. The nature of the security situation in a given foreign market at a given time cannot be guaranteed. The U.S. Government does not make any representations or guarantees as to the safety or security of participants. The U.S. Department of State issues U.S. Government international travel alerts and warnings for U.S. citizens available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings.html. Any question regarding insurance coverage must be resolved by the participant and its insurer of choice.

    Definition of Small and Medium Sized Enterprise

    For purposes of assessing participation fees, the Department of Commerce defines Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SME) as a firm with 500 or fewer employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small business under SBA regulations (see http://www.sba.gov/services/contractingopportunities/sizestandardstopics/index.html). Parent companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries will be considered when determining business size. The dual pricing reflects the Commercial Service's user fee schedule that became effective May 1, 2008 (see http://www.export.gov/newsletter/march2008/initiatives.html for additional information).

    Mission List: (additional information about each mission can be found at http://export.gov/trademissions).

    Secretary-Led Multi-Sector Trade Mission to China, Mid-November 2017 Summary

    United States Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross will lead a Trade Mission to China in mid-November 2017. This multi-sector mission will promote U.S. exports to China by supporting U.S. companies in launching or increasing their business in the marketplace, as well as address trade policy issues with high-level Chinese officials. Key elements will include business-to-government and business-to-industry meetings, market briefings, networking events and opportunities to promote new deals and agreements between mission participants and Chinese entities through signing ceremonies.

    In April 2017, President Trump and President Xi met at Mar-a-Lago to discuss strategic and economic concerns of both countries. The Presidents agreed to meet again in 2017 to further the relationship. Addressing the imbalance in U.S.-China trade has been a central focus of discussions between President Trump and President Xi, and this trade mission will advance the bilateral commercial relationship by promoting business deals between U.S. and Chinese firms, as well as addressing market access barriers faced by U.S. companies. President Xi and other senior Chinese officials have signaled their interest in improving the U.S.-China relationship through increased exports of U.S. goods and services to China.

    The trade mission delegation will be composed of senior executives (equivalent to C-suite) from 12-25 U.S. firms.

    Schedule Day One, November Beijing Business Delegation arrives in Beijing.
  • Business Delegation Meet and Greet.
  • Participant dinner/networking.
  • Day Two, November Beijing Opening Session: Welcome Remarks from Senior Government Officials.
  • Briefings/Panels with Chinese Ministers and industry experts.
  • Working lunch.
  • Briefings/Panels with Chinese Ministers and industry experts.
  • Signings Ceremony.
  • Networking Reception and Gala Dinner.
  • Participation Requirements

    All companies interested in participating in the Secretarial Trade Mission to China must complete and submit an application package for consideration to the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 12 and a maximum of 25 companies will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool.

    Fees and Expenses

    After a company has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The fee schedule for the mission is below:

    • $10,000 for large firms or trade associations • $9,500 for a small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 1

    1 For these purposes, a SME includes any company that qualifies as a small business under SBA regulations (see https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf) or has 500 or fewer employees. Parent companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries will be considered when determining business size.

    • $1,500 additional representative (large firm, SME, or trade association—limit one additional representative per company)

    Participants selected for the trade mission will be expected to pay for the cost of all personal expenses, including, but not limited to, air travel, lodging, meals, communication, and incidentals unless otherwise noted. In the event the mission is cancelled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a trade mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a cancelled trade mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in anticipation of the mission.

    Business visas will be required. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.

    Timeline for Recruitment

    Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr), posting on ITA's business development mission calendar (http://export.gov/trademissions) and other Internet Web sites, press releases to general and trade media, direct mail, broadcast fax, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows.

    Recruitment will begin immediately and conclude no later than October 6, 2017. Applications can be completed online and are available at www.export.gov/ChinaMission2017. At the time the dates of the mission are announced, they will be posted on this Web site. There is no guarantee this will occur before the application deadline.

    The application deadline is October 6, 2017. Completed applications should be submitted online. Applications received after the October 6th deadline will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. The Department of Commerce will evaluate all applications and inform applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after the application deadline.

    Contacts General Business and Applications:The Office of Business Liaison, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 5062, Washington, DC 20230, Phone: +1-202-482-1360, Fax: 202-482-4054, E-mail: [email protected] Tyler Shields, Director, The Office of China and Mongolia, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 38013, Washington, DC 20230, Phone: +1-202-482-3544, Email: [email protected] Frank Spector, Senior Advisor for Trade Missions.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20758 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-818] Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The review covers Truong Vinh Ltd. (Truong Vinh), Rich State, Inc. (Rich State), and Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd. (Dicha Sombrilla). The period of review (POR) is December 29, 2014, through June 30, 2016. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results. No parties commented, and our final results remain unchanged from our preliminary results. The final results are listed in the section entitled “Final Results of Review,” below.

    DATES:

    Effective September 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Flessner or Chelsey Simonovich, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-1979, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On June 6, 2017, the Department published the preliminary results of this review in the Federal Register.1 We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. No parties submitted case or rebuttal briefs.

    1See Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2016, 82 FR 26050 (June 6, 2017) (Preliminary Results).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made from round wire and nails that are cut from flat-rolled steel. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and may have any type of surface finish, head type, shank, point type and shaft diameter. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, including but not limited to electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate, cement, and paint. Certain steel nails may have one or more surface finishes. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the nail using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated in any manner using any material.

    Excluded from the scope of this order are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below.

    Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft length of one inch or less that are (a) a component of an unassembled article, (b) the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and (c) the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of (i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and (ii) barbers' chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics (e.g., furniture of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials). The aforementioned imported unassembled articles are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4418.10, 4418.20, 9401.30, 9401.40, 9401.51, 9401.59, 9401.61, 9401.69, 9403.30, 9403.40, 9403.50, 9403.60, 9403.81 or 9403.89.

    Also excluded from the scope of this order are steel nails that meet the specifications of Type I, Style 20 nails as identified in Tables 29 through 33 of ASTM Standard F1667 (2013 revision).

    Also excluded from the scope of this order are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.20.00 and 7317.00.30.00.

    Also excluded from the scope of this order are nails having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools.

    Also excluded from the scope of this order are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side.

    Also excluded from the scope of this order are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.10.00.

    Certain steel nails subject to this order are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00. Certain steel nails subject to these orders also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7907.00.60.00, 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings.

    While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Final Results of Review

    The Department received no comments concerning the Preliminary Results. Accordingly, the Department continues to determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for these final results:

    Company Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd 323.99 Rich State, Inc 323.99 Truong Vinh Ltd 323.99
    Disclosure

    Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed for the final results within five days of the publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because we made no changes to these margins since the Preliminary Results, no disclosure of calculations is necessary for these final results.

    Assessment

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the Federal Register.

    Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, for entries that were not reported in U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during the administrative review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the Vietnam-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under the exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the Vietnam-wide rate.2

    2See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Truong Vinh, Rich State, and Dicha Sombrilla, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most-recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the exporter was reviewed; (3) for all Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the Vietnam-wide entity, which is 323.99 percent; 3 and (4) for all non-Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnamese exporter that supplied that non-Vietnamese exporter with the subject merchandise. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    3Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 29622 (May 22, 2015).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy, Performing the Duties of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20800 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0056] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces that the CPSC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the CPSC's Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets (OMB No. 3041-0127). In the Federal Register of July 21, 2017 (82 FR 33875), the CPSC published a notice announcing the agency's intent to seek an extension of approval of this collection of information. CPSC received no comments in response to that notice. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information without change.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by October 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2010-0056.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charu S. Krishnan, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7221, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC has submitted the following currently approved collection of information to OMB for extension:

    Title: Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets.

    OMB Number: 3041-0127.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of bicycle helmets.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 38 manufacturers and importers will maintain test records of an estimated 200 models total annually, including older models and new models. Testing on bicycle helmets must be conducted for each new production lot and the test records must be maintained for 3 years.

    Estimated Time per Response: 200 hours/model to test 40 new models (including new prototypes) and an estimated 100 hours/model to test new production lots of 160 older models. Additionally, manufacturers and importers may require 4 hours annually per model for recordkeeping for approximately 200 models.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 24,800 hours (24,000 hours for testing and 800 hours for recordkeeping).

    General Description of Collection: In 1998, the Commission issued a safety standard for bicycle helmets (16 CFR part 1203). The standard includes requirements for labeling and instructions. The standard also requires that manufacturers and importers of bicycle helmets subject to the standard issue certificates of compliance based on a reasonable testing program. Every person issuing certificates of compliance must maintain certain records. Respondents must comply with the requirements in 16 CFR part 1203 for labeling and instructions, testing, certification, and recordkeeping.

    Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20779 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2015-0022] Guidance Document on Hazardous Additive, Non-Polymeric Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Certain Consumer Products AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Guidance document.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission announces that it has approved a statement that provides guidance for manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and consumers of certain consumer products that may contain harmful organohalogen flame retardants in an additive form. To protect consumers and children from the potential toxic effects of exposure to these chemicals, the Commission recommends that manufacturers of children's products, upholstered furniture sold for use in residences, mattresses (and mattress pads), and plastic casings surrounding electronics refrain from intentionally adding non-polymeric, organohalogen flame retardants (“OFRs”) to their products. Further, the Commission recommends that, before purchasing such products for resale, importers, distributors, and retailers obtain assurances from manufacturers that such products do not contain OFRs. Finally, the Commission recommends that consumers, especially those who are pregnant or with young children, inquire and obtain assurances from retailers that such products do not contain OFRs.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    DeWane Ray, Deputy Director, Safety Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7547, or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The text of the guidance document is as follows:

    Guidance for Hazardous Additive, Non-Polymeric Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Certain Consumer Products

    Summary: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 1 issues this guidance to manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and consumers to protect consumers (particularly children) from exposure to additive, non-polymeric organohalogen flame retardants (“OFRs”) 2 found in the following products: (1) Durable infant or toddler products, children's toys, child care articles or other children's products (other than children's car seats); (2) upholstered furniture sold for use in residences; (3) mattresses and mattress pads; and (4) plastic casings surrounding electronics.3 OFRs, also referred to as halogenated flame retardants, typically are added to foams, textiles, and polymers before, during or after production in theory to improve their resistance to fire. OFRs are not chemically bound to the substrate and may be released from the product, thereby leading to potential human and environmental exposures. On June 30, 2015, a coalition of consumer advocates and health professionals petitioned the Commission to declare four categories of consumer products containing OFRs to be “banned hazardous substances” under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”). The petitioners claim that due to their inherent physical-chemical properties, OFRs, among other things, are toxic, migrate widely out of products regardless of how the products are used, bioaccumulate, and present a serious public health concern. On September 20, 2017, the Commission voted to grant the petition to initiate rulemaking under the FHSA and directed the staff to convene a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel pursuant to the procedures of section 28 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2077) to further study the effects of these OFRs as a class of chemicals on consumers' health. In the meantime, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence presented to the Commission to date, the Commission has serious concerns regarding the potential toxicity of OFRs, and the risks of exposure, particularly to vulnerable populations, to OFRs, from the four categories of products listed in the petition. Accordingly, the Commission requests that manufacturers of children's products, furniture, mattresses, and electronics casings eliminate the use of such chemicals in these products. The Commission also recommends that, before purchasing such products for resale, importers, distributors, and retailers obtain assurances from manufacturers that such products do not contain OFRs. Finally, the Commission recommends that consumers, especially those who are pregnant or with young children, inquire and obtain assurances from retailers that such products do not contain OFRs.

    1 The Commission voted 3-2 to publish this Guidance Document in the Federal Register. Commissioner Robert S. Adler, Commissioner Marietta S. Robinson, and Commissioner Elliot F. Kaye voted to approve publication of the Guidance Document. Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle and Commissioner Joseph P. Mohorovic voted against publication of the Guidance Document.

    2 For purposes of this guidance, OFRs refers to additive, non-polymeric chemicals only; it does not include reactive or polymeric OFRs.

    3 This guidance is not a binding or enforceable rule and would not change any person's rights, duties, or obligations under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act or any other Act administered by the Commission.

    Hazard: Scientific evidence to date demonstrates that OFRs, when used in non-polymeric, additive form, migrate from consumer products, leading to widespread human exposure to mixtures of these chemicals. Exposures to OFRs occur because of the semi-volatile property of these chemicals that results in migration of the chemicals and the chemicals' absorption into household dust and other surfaces where they persist in the indoor environment. At this time, there is no known way to direct consumers to use affected products in a manner that would guarantee reducing exposures to the American population to an acceptable level. Numerous peer-reviewed, published studies show that the vast majority of consumers have measurable quantities of OFRs in their blood. The known adverse health effects of these chemicals to consumers include: Reproductive impairment (e.g., abnormal gonadal development, reduced number of ovarian follicles, reduced sperm count, increased time to pregnancy); neurological impacts (e.g., decreased IQ in children, impaired memory, learning deficits, altered motor behavior, hyperactivity); endocrine disruption and interference with thyroid hormone action (potentially contributing to diabetes and obesity); genotoxicity; cancer; and immune disorders. These chemicals have a disproportionately negative health effect on vulnerable populations, including children.

    Guidance: Under the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1261(g) and (f)(1)(A), any substance or mixture of substances which is toxic, i.e., that has the capacity to produce illness through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any bodily surface, and may cause substantial injury or illness during or as a proximate result of customary or reasonably foreseeable handing or use is a “hazardous substance.” A product intended or packaged for household use containing a hazardous substance is required to have precautionary labeling under the FHSA (15 U.S.C. 1261(p)), but if labeling is not adequate to protect against the potential hazard, the Commission may declare the product banned. (15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B)). If an article intended for use by children is a hazardous substance or bears or contains a hazardous substance that is susceptible of access by a child to whom the article is entrusted, the article is a banned hazardous substance. Id. 1261(q)(1)(A).

    To date, the Commission has not banned household products containing OFRs or required precautionary labeling for such products. However, on September 20, 2017, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence presented to date, the Commission voted to grant the petition to initiate rulemaking under the FHSA and directed the staff to convene a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel pursuant to the procedures of section 28 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2077) to further study the effects of OFRs as a class of chemicals on consumers' health. Much of the evidence currently before the Commission suggests OFRs, as a class of chemicals, present a serious public health issue. Therefore, the Commission has serious concerns regarding the potential toxicity of OFRs, and the risks of exposure, particularly to vulnerable populations, to OFRs, from the four categories of products listed in the petition.

    For these reasons, the Commission considers the use of OFRs in children's products, upholstered furniture sold for use in residences, mattresses and mattress pads, and plastic casings surrounding electronics to be ill-advised and encourages manufacturers to eliminate using them in such products. Further, the Commission recommends that, before, purchasing such products for resale, importers, distributors, and retailers obtain assurances from manufacturers that such products do not contain OFRs. Finally, the Commission recommends that consumers, especially those who are pregnant or with young children, inquire and obtain assurances from retailers that such products do not contain OFRs.

    Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20733 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Record of Decision for the KC-46 Third Main Operating Base (MOB 3) Beddown AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Record of Decision (ROD).

    On September 8, 2017, the United States Air Force signed the ROD for the KC-46 Third Main Operating Base (MOB 3) Beddown. The ROD states the Air Force decision to beddown up to twelve (12) KC-46 Primary Aerospace Vehicles Authroized (PAA) in one squadron at Seymor Johnston Air Force Base, where the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) leads the Mobility Air Force Mission.

    The decision was based on matters discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the KC-46 Third Main Operating Base (MOB 3) Beddown (http://www.kc-46a-beddown.com/); contributions from the public and regulatory agencies; and other relevant factors. The FEIS was made available to the public on April 14, 2017 through a NOA in the Federal Register (82 FR 17991) with a 30-day wait period that ended on May 15, 2017.

    Authority: This NOA is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and the Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR parts 989.21(b) and 989.24(b)(7)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Hamid Kamalpour, AFCEC/CZN, 2261 Hughes Ave., Ste. 155, Lackland AFB, TX 78236-9853. Ph: (210) 925-2738.

    Henry Williams, Jr., Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20822 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-01] 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 17-01 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN28SE17.001 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-01 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: Bahrain

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 5.10 million Other $55.15 million Total $60.25 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Two (2) MK 38 Mod 3 25mm Gun Weapons Systems Non-MDE: Two (2) 35 meter Fast Patrol Boats; two (2) SeaFLIR 380 HD Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) devices; communication equipment; support equipment; spare and repair parts; tools and test equipment; technical data and publications; personnel training; U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy

    (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: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: September 8, 2017

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Bahrain—35 Meter Fast Patrol Boats

    Bahrain has requested the purchase of two (2) 35 meter Fast Patrol Boats, each equipped with one (1) MK38 Mod 3 25mm gun weapon system and one (1) SeaFLIR 380 HD Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) device. Additionally, Bahrain has requested communication equipment; support equipment; spare and repair parts; tools and test equipment; technical data and publications; personnel training; U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $60.25 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. This proposed sale of patrol boats will enhance the military capabilities of the Royal Bahrain Naval Force in the fulfillment of its self-defense, maritime security, and counter-terrorism missions.

    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 contractors for systems listed include: 35 meter Fast Patrol Boats-SwiftShips, Morgan City, LA; MK38 Mod 3 25mm Gun Weapon System-BAE Systems, Louisville, KY; SeaFlir Model 380 HD Forward Looking Infra-Red Device-Flir Systems, Inc., Portland, OR. There are no known offset agreements proposed in conjunction with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips by U.S. Government and contractor representatives to participate in program and technical reviews plus boat reactivation and boat systems training in country, on a temporary basis, for a period of two years.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    [FR Doc. 2017-20732 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-49] 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 17-49 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN28SE17.000 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-49 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 Canada

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $2.64 billion Other $2.59 billion Total $5.23 billion

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Ten (10) F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, with F414-GE-400 Engines Eight (8) F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, with F414-GE-400 Engines

    Eight (8) F414-GE-400 Engine Spares

    Twenty (20) AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radars Twenty (20) M61A2 20MM Gun Systems Twenty-eight (28) AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets Fifteen (15) AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods Twenty (20) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems—Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS) Thirty (30) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS) Twenty-eight (28) AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems One hundred thirty (130) LAU-127E/A and/or F/A Guided Missile Launchers Twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting System (DTS) Twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting Processor (DTP) One hundred (100) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Missiles Thirty (30) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) Eight (8) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Special Air Training Missiles (NATM) Twenty (20) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Guidance Units Sixteen (16) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II CATM Guidance Units Non-MDE: Included in the sale are AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG); AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems; AN/ARC-210 Communication System; AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponder; AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoys; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); AN/PYQ-10C Simple Key Loader (SKL); Data Transfer Unit (DTU); Accurate Navigation (ANAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation; KIV-78 Duel Channel Encryptor, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF); CADS/PADS; Instrument Landing System (ILS); Aircraft Armament Equipment (AAE); High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR); Launchers (LAU-115D/A, LAU-116B/A, LAU-118A); flight test services; site survey; aircraft ferry; auxiliary fuel tanks; aircraft spares; containers; storage and preservation; transportation; aircrew and maintenance training; training aids and equipment, devices and spares and repair parts; weapon system support and test equipment; technical data Engineering Change Proposals; technical publications and documentation; software; avionics software support; software development/integration; system integration and testing; U.S. Government and contractor engineering technical and logistics support; Repair of Repairable (RoR); repair and return warranties; other technical assistance and support equipment; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: CN-P-FEC (planning case)

    (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 11, 2017

    *As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Canada—F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft with Support

    The Government of Canada has requested a possible sale of ten (10) F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8) F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8) F414-GE-400 engine spares; twenty (20) AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars; twenty (20) M61A2 20MM gun systems; twenty-eight (28) AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets; fifteen (15) AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods; twenty (20) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems-Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS); thirty (30) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS); twenty-eight (28) AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems; one hundred thirty (130) LAU-127E/A and or F/A Guided Missile Launchers; twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting System (DTS); twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting Processor (DTP); one hundred (100) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Missiles; thirty (30) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); eight (8) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Special Air Training Missiles (NATM); twenty (20) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Guidance Units; sixteen (16) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II CATM Guidance Units. Also included in this sale are AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG); AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems; AN/ARC-210 Communication System; AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponder; AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoys; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); AN/PYQ-10C Simple Key Loader (SKL); Data Transfer Unit (DTU); Accurate Navigation (ANAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation; KIV-78 Duel Channel Encryptor, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF); CADS/PADS; Instrument Landing System (ILS); Aircraft Armament Equipment (AAE); High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR); Launchers (LAU-115D/A, LAU-116B/A, LAU-118A); flight test services; site survey; aircraft ferry; auxiliary fuel tanks; aircraft spares; containers; storage and preservation; transportation; aircrew and maintenance training; training aids and equipment, devices and spares and repair parts; weapon system support and test equipment; technical data Engineering Change Proposals; technical publications and documentation; software; avionics software support; software development/integration; system integration and testing; U.S. Government and contractor engineering technical and logistics support; Repair of Repairable (RoR); repair and return warranties; other technical assistance and support equipment; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total case value is $5.23 billion.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally which has been, and continues to be, a key democratic partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability. The acquisition of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, associated weapons and capability will allow for greater interoperability with U.S. forces, providing benefits for training and possible future coalition operations in support of shared regional security objectives.

    The proposed sale of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft will improve Canada's capability to meet current and future warfare threats and provide greater security for its critical infrastructure. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft will supplement and eventually replace a portion of the Canadian Air Force's aging fighter aircraft. Canada 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 contractors will be: Boeing Company, St. Louis, MO; Northrop Grumman, Los Angeles, CA; Raytheon, El Segundo, CA; General Electric, Lynn, MA; and Raytheon Missile Systems Company, Tucson, AZ. The Government of Canada has advised that it will negotiate offset agreements with key U.S. contractors.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of contractor representatives to Canada on and intermittent basis over the life of the case to support delivery of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and weapons and to provide supply support management, inventory control and equipment familiarization.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-49 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a single-seat and two-seat, twin engine, multi-mission fighter/attack aircraft that can operate from either aircraft carriers or land bases. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fills a variety of roles: Air superiority, fighter escort, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, forward air control, close and deep air support, and day and night strike missions. The F/A-18E/F Weapons System is considered SECRET.

    2. The AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar System is classified SECRET. The radar provides the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft with all-weather, multi-mission capability for performing air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting and attack. Air-to-air modes provide the capability for all-aspect target detection, long-range search and track, automatic target acquisition, and tracking of multiple targets. Air-to-surface attack modes provide high-resolution ground mapping navigation, weapon delivery, and sensor cueing. The system component hardware (Antenna, Transmitter, Radar Data Processor, and Power Supply) is UNCLASSIFIED. The Receiver-Exciter hardware is CONFIDENTIAL. The radar Operational Flight Program (OFP) is classified SECRET. Documentation provided with the AN/APG-79 radar set is classified SECRET.

    3. The AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Set is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The AN/ALR-67(V)3 provides the F/A-18E/F aircrew with radar threat warnings by detecting and evaluating friendly and hostile radar frequency threat emitters and providing identification and status information about the emitters to on-board Electronic Warfare (EW) equipment and the aircrew. The Operational Flight Program (OFP) and User Data Files (UDF) used in the AN/ALR-67(V)3 are classified SECRET. Those software programs contain threat parametric data used to identify and establish priority of detected radar emitters.

    4. The Multifunctional Informational Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS) is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The MIDS-JTRS is a secure data and voice communication network using Link-16 architecture. The system provides enhanced situational awareness, positive identification of participants within the network, secure fighter-to-fighter connectivity, secure voice capability, and ARN-118 TACAN functionality. It provides three major functions: Air Control, Wide Area Surveillance, and Fighter-to-Fighter. The MIDS-JTRS can be used to transfer data in Air-to-Air, Air-to-Surface, and Air-to-Ground scenarios. The MIDS Enhanced Interference Blanking Unit (EIBU) provides validation and verification of equipment and concept. EIBU enhances input/output signal capacity of the MIDS-JTRS and addresses parts obsolescence.

    5. The Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) is a modified HGU-55/P helmet that incorporates a visor-projected Heads-Up Display (HUD) to cue weapons and aircraft sensors to air and ground targets. In close combat, a pilot must currently align the aircraft to shoot at a target. JHMCS allows the pilot to simply look at a target to shoot. This system projects visual targeting and aircraft performance information on the back of the helmet's visor, enabling the pilot to monitor this information without interrupting his field of view through the cockpit canopy. The system uses a magnetic transmitter unit fixed to the pilot's seat and a magnetic field probe mounted on the helmet to define helmet pointing positioning. A Helmet Vehicle Interface (HVI) interacts with the aircraft system bus to provide signal generation for the helmet display. This provides significant improvement for close combat targeting and engagement. Hardware is UNCLASSIFIED; technical data and documents are classified up to SECRET.

    6. The AN/ALQ-214 is an advanced airborne Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) programmable modular automated system capable of intercepting, identifying, processing received radar signals (pulsed and continuous) and applying an optimum countermeasures technique in the direction of the radar signal, thereby improving individual aircraft probability of survival from a variety of surface-to-air and air-to-air Radio Frequency (RF) threats. The system operates in a standalone or Electronic Warfare (EW) suite mode. In the EW suite mode, the AN/ALQ-214 operates in a fully coordinated mode with the towed dispensable decoy, Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), and the onboard radar in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in a coordinated, non-interference manner sharing information for enhanced information. The AN/ALQ-214 was designed to operate in a high-density Electromagnetic Hostile Environment with the ability to identify and counter a wide variety of multiple threats, including those with Doppler characteristics. Hardware within the AN/ALQ-214 is classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    7. LAU-127E/A and/or F/A Guided Missile Launchers designed to enable F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft to carry and launch missiles. It provides the electrical and mechanical interface between the missile and launch aircraft as well as the two-way data transfer between missile and cockpit controls and displays to support preflight orientation and control circuits to prepare and launch the missile.

    8. The AIM-9X-2 Block II Sidewinder missile represents a substantial increase in missile acquisition and kinematics performance over the AIM-9M and replaces AIM-9X Block I missile configuration. The missile includes a high off-boresight seeker, enhanced countermeasure rejection capability, low drag/high angle of attack airframe and the ability to integrate the Helmet Mounted Cueing System. The software algorithms are the most sensitive portion of the AIM-9X-2 missile. The software continues to be modified via a pre-planned product improvement (P3I) program in order to improve its counter-countermeasure capabilities. No software source code or algorithms will be released. The missile is classified as CONFIDENTIAL.

    9. The AIM-9X-2 will result in the transfer of sensitive technology and information. The equipment, hardware, and documentation are classified CONFIDENTIAL. The software and operation performance are classified SECRET. The seeker/guidance control section and the target detector are CONFIDENTIAL and contain sensitive state-of-the-art technology. Manuals and technical documentation that are necessary or support operational use and organizational management are classified up to SECRET. Performance and operating logic of the counter-countermeasures circuits are classified SECRET. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters and similar critical information.

    10. The AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Pod is a multi-sensor, electro-optical targeting pod incorporating infrared, low-light television camera, laser range finder/target designator, and laser spot tracker. It is used to provide navigation and targeting for military aircraft in adverse weather and using precision-guided weapons such as laser-guided bombs. It offers much greater target resolution and imagery accuracy than previous systems.

    11. The AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG) provide imagery sufficient for an aviator to complete night time missions down to starlight and extreme low light conditions. The AN/PVS-9 is designed to satisfy the F/A-18E/F mission requirements for covert night combat, engagement, and support. The third generation light amplification tubes provide a high-performance, image-intensification system for optimized F/A-18E/F night flying at terrain-masking altitudes. The AN/PVS-9 NVG's are classified as UNCLASSIFIED but with restrictions on release of technologies.

    12. The AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems is classified SECRET. The AN/ALE-47 is a threat-adaptive dispensing system that dispenses chaff, flares, and expendable jammers for self-protection against airborne and ground-based Radio Frequency (RF) and Infrared Threats. The AN/ALE-47 Programmer is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The Operational Flight Program (OFP) and Mission Data Files (MDF) used in the AN/ALE-47 are classified SECRET. Those software programs contain algorithms used to calculate the best defense against specific threats.

    13. The AN/ARC-210 Radio's Line-of-sight data transfer rates up to 80 k/s in a 25 kHz channel creating high-speed communication of critical situational awareness information for increased mission effectiveness. Software that is reprogrammable in the field via Memory Loader/Verifier Software making flexible use for multiple missions. The AN/ARC-210 has embedded software with programmable cryptography for secure communications.

    14. The AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator/Transponder (CIT) with the Conformal Antenna System (CAS) is classified SECRET. The CIT is a complete MARK-XII identification system compatible with Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Modes 1, 2, 3/A, C and 4 (secure). A single slide-in module that can be customized to the unique cryptographic functions for a specific country provides the systems secure mode capabilities. As a transponder, the CIT is capable of replying to interrogation modes 1, 2, 3/A, C (altitude) and secure mode 4. The requirement is to upgrade Canada's Combined Interrogator/Transponder (CIT) AN/APX-111 (V) IFF system software to implement Mode Select (Mode S) capabilities. Beginning in early 2005, EUROCONTROL mandated the civil community in Europe to transition to a Mode S only system and for all aircraft to be compliant by 2009. The Mode S Beacon System is a combined data link and Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) system that was standardized in 1985 by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Mode S provides air surveillance using a data link with a permanent unique aircraft address. Selective Interrogation provides higher data integrity, reduced Radio Frequency (RF) interference levels, increased air traffic capacity, and adds air-to-ground data link.

    15. The AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoy improves aircraft survivability by providing an enhanced, coordinated on-board/off-board countermeasure response to enemy threats.

    16. The Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) is classified SECRET. JMPS will provide mission planning capability for support of military aviation operations. It will also provide support for unit-level mission planning for all phases of military flight operations and have the capability to provide necessary mission data for the aircrew. JMPS will support the downloading of data to electronics data transfer devices for transfer to aircraft and weapon systems. A JMPS for a specific aircraft type will consist of basic planning tools called the Joint Mission Planning Environment (JMPE) mated with a Unique Planning Component (UPC) provided by the aircraft program. In addition UPCs will be required for specific weapons, communication devices, and moving map displays. The JMPS will be tailored to the specific releasable configuration for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

    17. AN/PYQ-10(C) is the next generation of the currently fielded AN/CYZ-10 Data Transfer Device (DTD). The AN/PYQ-10(C) provides automated, secure and user-friendly methods for managing and distributing cryptographic key material, Signal Operating Instructions (SOI), and Electronic Protection data. This course introduces some of the basic components and activities associated with the AN/PYQ-10(C) in addition to hands-on training. Learners will become familiar with the security features of the Simple Key Loader (SKL), practice the initial setup of the SKL, and will receive and distribute electronic keys using the SKL. Hardware is considered CLASSIFIED.

    18. Data Transfer Unit (DTU) with CRYPTO Type 1 and Ground Encryption Device (GED). The DTU (MU-1164(C)/A) has an embedded DAR-400ES. Both versions of the DAR-400 are type 1 devices.

    19. Accurate Navigation (ANAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) also includes Key loading Installation and Facility Charges. The ANAV is a 24-channel SAASM based pulse-per-second GPS receiver built for next generation GPS technology.

    20. KIV-78 Dual Channel Encryptor Mode 4/Mode 5 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Crypto applique includes aircraft installs and initial spares, to ensure proper identification of aircraft during coalition efforts. The KIV-78 provides cryptographic and time-of-day services for a Mark XIIA (Mode 4 and 5) IFF Combined Interrogator/Transponder (CIT), individual interrogator, and individual transponder. Hardware is considered CLASSIFIED.

    21. High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR) with CRYPTO Type 1 and Ground Encryption Device (GED). The HDVR has an embedded DAR-400EX and the GED has an embedded DAR-400ES. Both versions of the DAR-400 are Type 1 devices.

    22. If a technologically advanced adversary obtains knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    23. A determination has been made that the Government of Canada can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    24. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Canada.

    [FR Doc. 2017-20743 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-60] 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 16-60 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN28SE17.002 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-60 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 * $2.095 billion Other $0.690 billion Total $2.785 billion

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Nineteen (19) F-16V Aircraft Nineteen (19) M61 Vulcan 20mm Gun Systems Twenty-two (22) F-16V F-110-GE-129 Engines (includes 3 spares) Twenty-two (22) APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars (includes 3 spares) Twenty-two (22) Modular Mission Computers (includes 3 spares) Twenty-two (22) Embedded Global Navigation Systems/LN260 EGI (includes 3 spares) Twenty-two (22) Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDG) (includes 3 spares) Thirty-eight (38) LAU-129 Launchers

    Non-MDE include:

    Nineteen (19) AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS Systems, thirty-eight (38) LAU-118A Launchers, forty-two (42) AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS Radio or equivalent, twenty-two (22) AN/APX-126 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) system or equivalent, twenty-two (22) cryptographic appliques, secure communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, simulators, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support services, containers, missile support and test equipment, original equipment manufacturer integration and test, U.S. Government and contractor technical support and training services, site survey, design, construction studies/analysis/services, associated operations/maintenance/training/support facilities, cybersecurity, critical computer resources support, force protection and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (X7-D-SAB)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS Case BA-D-SGA—$330,927,474—21 Apr 87 FMS Case BA-D-SGG—$234,879,152—20 Feb 98

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex Attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: September 8, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Bahrain—F-16V Aircraft with Support

    The Government of Bahrain has requested a possible sale of nineteen (19) F-16V Aircraft; nineteen (19) M61 Vulcan 20mm Gun Systems; twenty-two (22) F-16V F-110-GE-129 Engines (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) Modular Mission Computers (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) Embedded Global Navigation Systems/LN260 EGI (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDG) (includes 3 spares); and thirty-eight (38) LAU-129 Launchers. This sale also includes nineteen (19) AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS Systems, thirty-eight (38) LAU-118A Launchers, forty-two (42) AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS Radio or equivalent, twenty-two (22) AN/APX-126 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) system or equivalent, twenty-two (22) cryptographic appliques, secure communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, simulators, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support services, containers, missile support and test equipment, original equipment manufacturer integration and test, U.S. Government and contractor technical support and training services, site survey, design, construction studies/analysis/services, associated 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 $2.785 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 the capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. This purchase of F-16Vs will improve interoperability with United States and other regional allies. Bahrain employs 20 older F-16 Block 40s and will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of these aircraft will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin. There are no know offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of at least ten (10) additional U.S. Government representatives and approximately seventy-five (75) contractor representatives to Bahrain.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-60 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 involves the release of sensitive technology to Bahrain. The F-16C/D Block V weapon system is unclassified, except as noted below. The aircraft uses the F-16 airframe and features advanced avionics and systems. It contains the General Electric F-110-129 engine, AN/APG-83 radar, digital flight control system, internal and external electronic warfare (EW) equipment, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), operational flight trainer, and software computer programs.

    2. Sensitive or classified (up to SECRET) elements of the proposed F-16V include hardware, accessories, components, and associated software: AN/APG-83 AESA Radars, Modular Mission Computers, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), cryptographic appliques, Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System, Modular Mission Computer (MMC), AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS Systems, LAU-129 Launchers, Modular Mission Computers, and Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDGs). 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-16V. It includes higher processor power, higher transmission power, more sensitive receiver electronics, 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) System provides passive radar warning, wide spectrum RF jamming, and control and management of the entire EW system. 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. The secure voice communications radio system is considered unclassified, but may employ cryptographic technology that is classified SECRET. Classified elements include operating characteristics, parameters, technical data, and keying material.

    6. An Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) is a system capable of transmitting and interrogating Mode V. It is UNCLASSIFIED unless Mode IV or Mode V operational evaluator parameters are loaded into the equipment that is classified SECRET. Classified elements of the AIFF system include software object code, operating characteristics, parameters, and technical data.

    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 LAU-129 Guided Missile Launcher is capable of launching a single AIM-9 (Sidewinder) family of missile or a single AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The LAU-129 provides mechanical and electrical interface between missile and aircraft. The LAU-129 system is UNCLASSIFIED.

    9. 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.

    10. 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 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.

    11. M61A1 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.

    12. Software, hardware, and other data or 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    16. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Bahrain.

    [FR Doc. 2017-20719 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0104] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; an Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B) AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 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 30, 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-0104. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-34, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Lauren Angelo, 202-245-7276.

    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: An Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B).

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0921.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,568.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 457.

    Abstract: This submission requests approval of a third year of select data collection activities that will be used to support the Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B). The evaluation will estimate the impact on school staff practices, school climate, and student outcomes of providing training and support in the MTSS-B framework plus universal (Tier I) positive behavior supports and targeted (Tier II) interventions across two years. The third year of data collection will provide information on sustainability, the capacity of schools to continue implementation after the study-supported training and support are complete, as well as district efforts to scale-up the intervention in other schools.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20820 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0102] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2017-18 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Administrative Collection (NPSAS:18-AC) AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 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 30, 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-0102. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-34, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    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: 2017-18 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Administrative Collection (NPSAS: 18-AC).

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0666.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 10,804.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 63,335.

    Abstract: This request is to conduct the 2017-18 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, Administrative Collection (NPSAS:18-AC). This study is being conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). NPSAS is a nationally representative study of how students and their families finance education beyond high school. The first NPSAS was implemented by NCES during the 1986-87 academic year to meet the need for national data about significant financial aid issues. Since 1987, NPSAS has been fielded every 3 to 4 years, most recently during the 2015-16 academic year (NPSAS:16). This submission is for NPSAS:18-AC, which departs from the design of previous NPSAS studies in three respects: It is anticipated to include state-representative estimates for undergraduate students overall and in public 2-year and public 4-year institutions; it will provide financial aid estimates 2-years earlier than how the studies were previously scheduled; and it will be the first NPSAS study without a student interview component. Future NPSAS collections will continue to include a student interview every four years (NPSAS:16, NPSAS:20, NPSAS:24) to yield nationally representative data. In alternating cycles, an Administrative Collection (NPSAS:18-AC, NPSAS:22-AC, and NPSAS:26-AC) will be conducted in which only administrative data from the Department's data systems and institutional student records will be compiled to yield state representative data. This submission covers materials and procedures related to enrollment list collection, student record abstractions, and matching to administrative data files as part of the NPSAS:18-AC data collection.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Kate Mullan, <E T="03">Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.</E>
    [FR Doc. 2017-20780 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL17-92-000] East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 20, 2017, East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. filed an application for cost-based revenue requirements schedule for reactive power production capability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 11, 2017.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20786 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2428-007] Aquenergy Systems, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Subsequent License.

    b. Project No.: 2428-007.

    c. Date filed: December 30, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Aquenergy Systems, LLC (Aquenergy).

    e. Name of Project: Piedmont Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Saluda River in the Town of Piedmont, in Anderson and Greenville Counties, South Carolina. The project does not affect federal land.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Beth E. Harris, P.E., Regional Operations Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 11 Anderson Street, Piedmont, SC 29673; Telephone—(864) 846-0042; Email—[email protected] OR Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., One Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA 01810; Telephone—(978) 681-1900; Email—[email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Navreet Deo, (202) 502-6304, or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2428-007.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    l. The Piedmont Project consists of: (1) A 600-foot-long by 25-foot-high stone masonry dam, consisting of (i) a 200-foot-long non-overflow section, (ii) a 200-foot-long central overflow spillway topped with 16-inch wooden flashboards, and (iii) a 200-foot-long non-overflow spillway housing the inoperable J.P. Stevens Canal intake; (2) a 22-acre impoundment at a normal pool elevation of 774 feet mean sea level; (3) a 144-foot-long by 81-foot-wide intake canal consisting of eight gates at the head of the canal controlling flow to the powerhouse; (4) a 55-foot-long by 55-foot-wide brick masonry powerhouse protected by a trashrack structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing, located 120 feet downstream of the dam, containing one vertical Francis turbine generating unit that totals 1,000 kilowatt (kW); (5) a 180-foot-long by 38-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 263-foot-long, 600-volt transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the non-project substation; and (7) appurtenant facilities.

    Aquenergy operates the project in a run-of-river mode, with no useable storage or flood control capacity. A continuous minimum flow of 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less, is released into the bypassed area. The minimum flow is achieved via a weir on the spillway crest. The project operates under an estimated average head of 26 feet, including the 16-inch spillway flashboards. The impoundment water surface elevation is maintained at 774 feet. River flows between 159 cfs and 535 cfs are used for power generation, while flows in excess of 535 cfs are passed over the flashboards and spillway. The total installed capacity of the project is 1,000 kW from the single generating unit. The project generates approximately 5,369 megawatt-hours annually, which are sold to a local utility.

    Aquenergy proposes to continue to operate and maintain the Piedmont Project as is required in the existing license, and to develop canoe portage facilities. No changes to project operations are proposed. Other than the development of canoe portage facilities, no new construction or major project modifications are proposed.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST or MOTION TO INTERVENE; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20787 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 10254-026] Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC, Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: New License.

    b. Project No.: 10254-026.

    c. Date filed: November 30, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC (Pelzer Hydro), Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC (Consolidated Hydro).

    e. Name of Project: Upper Pelzer Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Saluda River in the Town of Pelzer, in Anderson and Greenville Counties, South Carolina. The project does not affect federal land.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Beth E. Harris, P.E., Regional Operations Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 11 Anderson Street, Piedmont, SC 29673; Telephone—(864) 846-0042; Email—[email protected] OR Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., One Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA 01810; Telephone—(978) 681-1900; Email—[email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Navreet Deo, (202) 502-6304, or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-10254-026.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    l. The Upper Pelzer Project consists of: (1) A 505-foot-long by 29.7-foot-high granite masonry dam, consisting of (i) a 150-foot-long non-overflow section, (ii) a 280-foot-long ungated overflow spillway topped with 4-foot wooden flashboards, and (iii) a 75-foot-long gated intake section containing six gates; (2) a 25-acre impoundment at a normal pool elevation of 718.7 feet mean sea level, as measured at the top of the flashboards; (3) a 260-foot-long by 52-foot-wide forebay canal channeling flow from 6 canal gates to the project's 2 powerhouses; (4) an upstream concrete powerhouse, protected by a 65-foot-long trashrack structure with 5.5-inch clear bar spacing for 38 feet of length, and 2-inch clear bar spacing for 27 feet of length, containing two vertical Francis turbine generating units that total 1,500 kW (kW); (5) a downstream powerhouse, protected by a trashrack structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing, containing one vertical Francis turbine generating unit that totals 450 kW; (6) a 95-foot-long by 74-foot-wide tailrace extending from the upstream powerhouse, and a 132-foot-long by 24-foot-wide tailrace extending from the downstream powerhouse; (7) a 65-foot-long, 3,300-volt transmission line, connecting the upper and lower powerhouses with the grid via a 7.2/12.47 kilovolt transformer; and (8) appurtenant facilities.

    Pelzer Hydro and Consolidated Hydro (co-licensees) operate the project in a run-of-river mode, with no useable storage or flood control capacity. There are no minimum flow requirements downstream of the dam. The project operates under an estimated average head of 25 feet, including the 4-foot spillway flashboards. The impoundment water surface elevation is maintained at 718.7 feet. River flows between 159 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 1,200 cfs are used for power generation, while flows in excess of 1,200 cfs are passed over the spillway. A single manually operated, low level outlet gate located in the unregulated spillway portion of the dam is used to drain the impoundment during maintenance activities. The total installed capacity of the project is 1,950 kW between the three generating units. The project generates approximately 6,223 megawatt-hours annually, which are sold to a local utility.

    The co-licensees propose to continue to operate and maintain the Upper Pelzer Project as is required in the existing license, and to develop canoe portage facilities. The co-licensees also propose to release a continuous minimum flow of 15 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, from the project dam in order to maintain aquatic habitat and water quality conditions in the 115-foot-long reach between the dam and the upstream powerhouse tailrace.

    Other than the development of canoe portage facilities, no new construction or major project modifications are proposed.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title protest or motion to intervene; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20789 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 10253-032] Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC, Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: New License.

    b. Project No.: 10253-032.

    c. Date filed: November 30, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC (Pelzer Hydro), Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC (Consolidated Hydro).

    e. Name of Project: Lower Pelzer Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Saluda River near the Towns of Pelzer and Williamston, in Anderson and Greenville Counties, South Carolina. The project does not affect federal land.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Beth E. Harris, P.E., Regional Operations Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 11 Anderson Street Piedmont, SC 29673; Telephone—(864) 846-0042; Email—[email protected] OR Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., One Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA 01810; Telephone—(978) 681-1900; Email—[email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Navreet Deo, (202) 502-6304, or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-10253-032.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    l. The Lower Pelzer Project consists of: (1) A 696-foot-long by 40-foot-high granite masonry dam, consisting of (i) a 310-foot-long spillway section topped with 4-foot wooden flashboards, (ii) a 40-foot-long non-overflow section with two 10-foot-wide by 6-foot-high gates, and (iii) a 236-foot-long non-overflow section; (2) an 80-acre impoundment at a normal pool elevation of 693 feet mean sea level; (3) a 110-foot-long by 14-foot-wide intake, protected by a trashrack structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing, controlling flow to the powerhouse through five, 10.5-foot-wide square gates; (4) a 110-foot-long by 68-foot-wide brick powerhouse integral with the dam, containing 5 horizontal Francis turbine generating units that total 3,300 kilowatts (kW); (5) a 600-foot-long by 110-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 3-mile-long, 3,300-volt transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the grid via a 7.2/12.47 kilovolt transformer; and (7) appurtenant facilities.

    Pelzer Hydro and Consolidated Hydro (co-licensees) operate the project in a run-of-river mode, with no storage or flood control capacity. A continuous minimum flow of 140 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less, is released into the bypassed reach. The minimum flow is achieved via a sluice gate in the dam. The project operates under an estimated average head of 40 feet, including the 4-foot spillway flashboards. The impoundment water surface elevation is maintained at 693 feet. River flows between 159 and 1,408 cfs are used for power generation, while flows in excess of 1,408 cfs are passed over the flashboards and spillway. Flow to the generating units is controlled by five manually operated square slide gates. The total installed capacity of the project is 3,300 kW between the five generating units. The project generates approximately 8,784 megawatt-hours annually, which are sold to a local utility.

    The co-licensees propose to continue to operate and maintain the Lower Pelzer Project as is required in the existing license, and to develop canoe portage facilities. The co-licensees also propose to remove the existing three-mile-long, 3,300-volt overhead transmission line, which is no longer in use, from the project boundary under a new license. Instead, the project would use a 165-foot-long, 3,300-volt transmission line that interconnects with the grid at an applicant-owned transformer.

    No changes to project operations are proposed. Other than the development of canoe portage facilities, no new construction or major project modifications are proposed.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST or MOTION TO INTERVENE; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20788 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (OMB Nos. 3064-0085 and 3064-0120) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collections were previously published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until October 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html

    Email: [email protected] Please include the name and OMB control number of the relevant information collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Manny Cabeza, Counsel, Room MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, attention FDIC Desk Officer, New Executive Office Building, Washington DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of any proposed information collection instrument and instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Manny Cabeza, Counsel, FDIC Legal Division either by mail at Room MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429; by email at [email protected]; or by telephone at (202) 898-3767.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collections of information are encouraged. All comments received will become a matter of public record. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so, how, the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Overview of the Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Record Keeping, Reporting and Disclosure Requirements in Connection with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act Regulation B.

    OMB Number: 3064-0085.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations.

    Burden Estimate: 1

    Source and burden Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • frequency
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average time
  • per response
  • (Minutes)
  • Estimated
  • annual burden
  • (Hours)
  • Reporting burden: Credit Reporting History (1002.10) 3,711 1,333 4,946,763 1 82,466 Demographic Information Collected for Monitoring Purposes (1002.13(a)&(b)) 3,711 279 1,035,369 1 17,256 Total Reporting 99,702 Disclosure Burden: Disclosure for Optional Self-Test (1002.5) 50 1 50 2 2 Notification (1002.9) 3,711 333 1,235,763 3 61,788 Appraisal Report
  • (1002.14(a)(1))
  • 3,711 279 1,035,369 3 51,768
    Disclosure of Information Collected for Monitoring Purposes(1002.13(c)) 3,711 279 1,035,369 1 17,256 Notice of Right to Appraisal (1002.14(a)(2)) 3,711 279 1,035,369 1 17,256 Total Disclosure 148,071 Recordkeeping Burden: Record Retention (Applications, Actions, Pre-Screened Solicitations)(1002.12) 3,711 1,333 4,946,763 3 247,338 Record Retention (Self-Testing)(1002.12)(b)(6) 50 1 50 3 3 Total Recordkeeping 247,341 Total Burden Hours 495,113

    General Description of Collection: Regulation B (12 CFR part 1002) issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, prohibits creditors from discriminating against applicants on any bases specified by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; imposes, reporting, record keeping and disclosure requirements; establishes guidelines for gathering and evaluating credit information; and requires creditors to give applicants certain written notices. There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall 107,276 hour reduction in total estimated annual burden (from 602,389 to 495,113 hours) is a result of economic fluctuation reflected in a reduction in the number of FDIC-supervised institutions, and because of the revision of the FDIC's estimates of the number of responses and the average time required to respond to the various information collections tasks.

    1 The average hours per response shown in the table are rounded, but the Estimated Annual Burden is calculated using the full decimal and then is rounded to the nearest hour.

    Changes to Data and Assumptions: The burden estimates shown above include several changes from the estimates the FDIC previously provided for this information collection. The FDIC currently supervises 3,711 insured financial institutions, a decrease of 687 from the 4,398 reported in 2014. Whereas the FDIC previously estimated that 25 percent (1,100) of its supervised institutions would conduct optional self-testing, the FDIC's experience shows that very few banks actually conduct these optional tests; our revised estimate of 50 banks is likely high. The FDIC has also updated the annual frequencies for each burden. The FDIC believes the prior estimate of 850 approved loans per year, on average, was too low and has increased its estimate to 1,000. The agency has also corrected the frequencies for sections 1002.5 and 1002.12 which are completed only once per year. As a conservative estimate, FDIC assumes that the denial rate for residential real estate loans applications for covered institutions is 14 percent. According to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data from 2015, the denial rate for conventional home-purchase loan applications was 10.8 percent, and the denial rate for nonconventional home-purchase loans was 13.9 percent.2 Call report data from June 30, 2017 shows that approximately 24 percent of total loan and lease balances are residential real estate loans (RRE), so, for purposes of estimating burden, FDIC assumes that 24 percent of the number of loans relate to RRE. The FDIC estimates that approximately 25 percent of non-RRE loans are denied.

    2 Federal Reserve Bulletin, November 2016, Vol. 102, No. 6.

    The foregoing assumptions result in the following estimates:

    1,000 loans approved/(1 − 25 percent) = 1,333 loan applications 1,333 loan applications × 25 percent = 333 loans denied 1,000 loans approved × 24 percent = 240 RRE loans 240 RRE loans/(1 − 14 percent) = 279 RRE loan applications

    The table above now includes the burden estimate for section 1002.13 that was inadvertently omitted from prior information collection submissions. Section 1002.13(a), to monitor compliance, requires lenders to collect demographic information from loan applicants either on the application form or on a separate form. Section 1002.13(b) & (c) involve disclosing to loan applicants the purpose and use of this demographic information.

    The burden table also deletes the prior estimated burden for 1002.15 which only describes the eligibility for incentives for self-testing and self-correction and does not involve any disclosures, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.

    The FDIC has updated its estimate of the number of burden hours required to complete each task. It has estimated a burden of one to three minutes for most tasks (0.017 to 0.05 hours), a figure not significantly different from the prior estimates. However, the FDIC believes that the prior burden estimates for self-testing were greatly overstated. Whereas previously, self-testing under section 1002.12 was estimated to require two (2) hours to complete, the FDIC believes the recordkeeping requirement articulated in the rule should take only 3 minutes (0.05 hours) to complete.

    2. Title: Flood Insurance.

    OMB Number: 3064-0120.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations.

    Burden Estimate:

    Table 1—Burden Calculation Item Share of
  • burden
  • Hours Share Hours Hours Total hours
    1. Disclosure to the Borrower 50% 0.50 90% 0.45 0.225 25,097 2. Disclosure to the Servicer 0.225 25,097 3. Report to FEMA of a Change in Servicer 10% 0.05 0.05 5,577 4. Recordkeeping (Bank keeps a copy of all notifications) 50 0.50 0.50 0.50 55,770 1.0 1.0 1.0 111,540 Respondents (FDIC supervised banks with real estate loans) 3,718 Frequency (Average no. of real estate loans serviced w/flood ins) 30 Total burden 111,540 Sources: FDIC, FEMA, Federal Reserve Board.

    General Description of Collection: Each supervised lending institution is currently required to provide a notice of special flood hazards to each borrower with a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in an area identified by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as being subject to special flood hazards. The Riegle Community Development Act requires that each institution also provide a copy of the notice to the servicer of the loan (if different from the originating lender).

    There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. There is an overall reduction in burden hours which is the result of (1) economic fluctuation reflected by a decrease in the number of FDIC-supervised institutions and (2) a decrease in the number of flood insurance policies nationally. In particular, the number of respondents and the frequency of response (number of loans) have decreased while the hours per response remain the same.

    Changes to Data and Assumptions: FDIC estimates total annual burden to be 111,540 hours. To obtain this figure, FDIC relied on: (a) Data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as of May 2017; (b) FDIC Call Report data as of March 31, 2017; and (c) Federal Reserve Board mortgage data as of March 31, 2017.

    FEMA reported there were 4,983,954 flood insurance policies in effect with a total insured value of $1,238,657,149,400.3

    3https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance-statistics-current-month (accessed June 15, 2017).

    FDIC Call Report data showed that as of March 31, 2017, there were a total of 5,790 FDIC-insured institutions with a total of $4.25 trillion in 1-4 family; multifamily; nonfarm, nonresidential, and agricultural loans secured by real estate. As of March 31, 2017, there were 3,718 FDIC-regulated institutions with a total value of about $1.19 trillion in these loans. Based on the foregoing, we estimate that FDIC-regulated banks hold 27.9% of these assets.

    The Federal Reserve Board reported $14.41 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding in the U.S., with $4.63 trillion (32.4%) held by depository institutions.4 Since this total debt held by banks is close to the value of these real estate loans from Call Report data, we have confidence that we can meld the data sets for estimation purposes. We therefore assume that 32.4% of the value of flood insurance policies will be held by U.S. commercial banks: $401 billion.

    4https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/releases/mortoutstand/mortoutstand20170331.htm (accessed June 15, 2017).

    In the absence of any data on the number of real estate loans with flood insurance at any bank, we resort to apportion 32.4% of the number of flood insurance policies (1,614,801) to commercial banks, and 27.9% of those to FDIC-regulated institutions (451,177). Because the value of property varies greatly between different geographical regions and different banks, it is doubtful that this estimation of the number of policies is accurate. However, there exists no other reasonable method for deriving the number of policies at each bank given available data.

    Next, we apportioned the 451,177 flood insurance policies to each FDIC-regulated institution according to its share of real estate loans to total real estate loans. The resulting apportionment results in an average of 121 policies per bank, and a median of 30 policies per bank. Because the average is skewed by the large number of policies at large banks, we believe the median is a better measure for calculating burden hours.

    Our subject-matter experts (SMEs) for this rule believe that the total burden to the public for complying with this rule is 1.0 hours per policy. We find four PRA related tasks in this rule: (1) Disclosure to Borrowers, (2) Disclosure to Servicers, (3) Reporting to FEMA of Changes in Coverage, and (4) Recordkeeping for tasks 1-3 above. We assume that Recordkeeping will comprise 1/2 hour, and the remaining 1/2 is split between the other tasks. We assume that 90% of policies will involve a new origination, and 10% of policies will involve a change in status.

    With 3,718 respondents holding a median of 30 policies and 1 hour of burden per policy, we calculate a total burden of 111,540 hours. This burden is apportioned to each task as shown in Table 1 above.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of September, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20759 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 23, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. First Mutual Holding Co., Lakewood, Ohio; to acquire Doolin Security Savings Bank, FSB, New Martinsville, West Virginia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 25, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20811 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Business Opportunity Rule (“Rule”). That clearance expires on January 31, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted by November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Business Opportunity Rule Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P114408” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/BusinessOpportunityRulePRA by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be addressed to Christine M. Todaro, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., CC-8528, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 CFR part 437 (OMB Control Number 3084-0142).

    The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    The Business Opportunity Rule requires business opportunity sellers to furnish to prospective purchasers a disclosure document that provides information relating to the seller, the seller's business, the nature of the proposed business opportunity, as well as additional information regarding any claims about actual or potential sales, income, or profits for a prospective business opportunity purchaser. The seller must also preserve information that forms a reasonable basis for such claims. These disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are subject to the PRA.

    The Rule is designed to ensure that prospective purchasers of a business opportunity receive information that will help them evaluate the opportunity that is presented to them. Sellers must disclose five key items of information in a simple, one-page document:

    • The seller's identifying information;

    • whether the seller makes a claim about the purchaser's likely earnings (and, if the seller checks the “yes” box, the seller must provide information supporting any such claims);

    • whether the seller, its affiliates or key personnel have been involved in certain legal actions (and, if yes, the seller must provide a separate list of those actions);

    • whether the seller has a cancellation or refund policy (and, if yes, the seller must provide a separate document stating the material terms of such policies); and

    • a list of persons who bought the business opportunity within the previous three years.

    Misrepresentations and omissions are prohibited under the Rule, and for sales conducted in languages other than English, all disclosures must be provided in the language in which the sale is conducted.

    PRA Burden Analysis

    Subject to public comment to shed further light, the FTC retains its respondent population estimates from its prior OMB clearance for the information collection requirements under the Rule.1 Thus, FTC staff estimates there are approximately 3,050 business opportunity sellers covered by the Rule, including vending machine, rack display, work-at-home, and other opportunity sellers. Staff also estimates that approximately 10% of the 3,050 business opportunity sellers covered by the Rule reflects an equal amount of new and departing business entrants (thus, for simplicity, staff assumes that, for a given year, there are 2,745 existing business opportunity sellers plus 305 new entrants to the field). Additionally, staff estimates that approximately 165 of business opportunity sellers market business opportunities in Spanish (in addition to English) and approximately 95 sellers market in languages other than English or Spanish 2 (in addition to English).

    1 79 FR 73074 (Dec. 9, 2014).

    2 To estimate how many of the 3,050 sellers market business opportunities in languages other than English, FTC staff relies upon 2015 United States Census Bureau (“Census”) data. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_S1601&prodType=table. Calculations based upon this data reveal that approximately 5.4% of the United States population speaks Spanish at home and speaks English less than “very well.” Calculations based upon that same survey reveal that approximately 3.1% of the United States population speaks a language other than Spanish or English at home and speak English less than “very well.” Staff thus projected that 5.4% of all entities selling business opportunities market in Spanish and 3.1% of all entities selling business opportunities market in languages other than English or Spanish.

    A. Estimated Hours Burden

    The burden estimates for compliance will vary depending on the particular business opportunity seller's prior experience with the Rule. Commission staff estimates that the projected 2,745 existing business opportunity sellers will require no more than approximately two hours to update the disclosure document [5,490 total hours]. Staff further projects that the estimated 305 new business opportunity sellers will require no more than approximately five hours to develop the disclosure document [1,525 total hours]. Both existing and new business opportunity sellers will require approximately one hour to file and store records [3,050 total hours], for a cumulative total of 10,065 hours [5,490 hours + 1,525 hours + 3,050 hours] per year to meet the Rule's disclosure and recordkeeping requirements.

    B. Estimated Labor Cost

    Labor costs are determined by applying applicable wage rates to associated burden hours. Commission staff assumes that an attorney likely would prepare or update the disclosure document at an estimated hourly rate of $250. Accordingly, staff estimates that cumulative labor costs are $2,516,250 [10,065 hours × $250 per hour].

    C. Estimated Non-Labor Costs 1. Printing and Mailing of the Disclosure Document

    Business opportunity sellers must also incur costs to print and distribute the single-page disclosure document, plus any attachments. These costs vary based upon the length of the attachments and the number of copies produced to meet the expected demand. Commission staff estimates that 3,050 business opportunity sellers will print and mail approximately 1,000 disclosure documents per year at a cost of $1.00 per document, for a total cost of $3,050,000. Conceivably, many business opportunity sellers will elect to furnish disclosures electronically; thus, the total cost could be much less.

    2. Translating the Required Disclosures Into a Language Other Than English

    The Rule requires that sellers update their disclosures. The costs associated with translating the disclosures will vary depending upon a business opportunity seller's prior experience with the Rule and the language the seller uses to market the opportunity. For example, existing and new business opportunity sellers marketing in Spanish will not incur costs to translate the disclosure document as Appendices A and B to the Rule provide, respectively, illustrations of the requisite disclosure documents in English and Spanish. Existing sellers, regardless of the non-English language used to present disclosures, may incur translation costs to update the document. New entrants that market business opportunities in languages other than English or Spanish (in addition to an assumed use of disclosure documents in English) will incur translation costs to translate Appendix A from English and to enter equivalent responses in these other languages.

    As stated above, using assumptions informed by Census data (see footnote 2), FTC staff estimates that 165 sellers market business opportunities in Spanish and an additional 95 sellers market in languages other than English or Spanish. This includes an estimated 10 new entrants in the latter sub-category (based on the assumption that 10% yearly of a given group consists of new entrants with an equal offset for departing business entities). Those new entrants will incur initial translation costs to draft a disclosure document consistent with Appendix A to the Rule.

    There are 485 words in Appendix A to the Rule. Therefore, the total cost burden to translate the disclosure document for the 10 new business opportunity sellers marketing in a language other than English or Spanish will be approximately $849 [10 sellers × (17.5 cents 3 per word × 485 words)].

    3 Staff estimates that it will cost approximately 17.5 cents to translate each word into the language the sellers use to market the opportunities.

    For purposes of this PRA analysis, staff assumes that both new and existing business opportunity sellers marketing business opportunities in languages other than English [260 sellers]: (1) Are marketing in both English and another language; (2) are not incorporating any existing materials into their disclosure document; (3) have been the subject of civil or criminal legal actions; (4) are making earnings claims; (5) have a refund or cancellation policy; and (6) because of all of the above assumptions, require approximately 250 words (approximately one standard, double-spaced page) to translate their updates, in the case of existing business opportunity sellers, or supply and translate their initial disclosures, in the case of new business opportunity sellers. Therefore, the total cost to translate the updates or to translate from English the initial disclosures is approximately $11,375 [260 sellers × (17.5 cents per word × 250 words)].

    Thus, cumulative estimated non-labor costs are $3,062,224 ($3,050,000 + $849 + $11,375).

    Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 27, 2017. Write “Business Opportunity Rule Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P114408” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/BusinessOpportunityRulePRA_by following the instructions on the web-based form. When this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Business Opportunity Rule Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P114408” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at https://www.ftc.gov/, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC Web site—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC Web site, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before November 27, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    David C. Shonka, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20846 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [OMB No.: 0970—NEW] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Child Care and Development Fund Quality Progress Report

    Description: Lead Agencies are required to spend a certain percent of their Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) awards on activities to improve the quality of child care. Lead Agencies are also required to invest in at least one of 10 allowable quality activities included in the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 2014. In order to ensure that States and Territories are meeting these requirements, the CCDBG Act and the CCDF final rule require Lead Agencies to submit an annual report, identified as the Quality Progress Report in the CCDF final rule. The report must describe how quality funds were expended, including what types of activities were funded and measures used to evaluate progress in improving the quality of child care programs and services. The QPR replaces the Quality Performance Report that was previously an appendix to the CCDF Plan. The QPR increased transparency on quality spending and will continue to gather detailed information on how States and Territories are spending their quality funds, as well as more specific data points to reflect the requirements in the CCDBG Act and the CCDF final rule.

    In the QPR, Lead Agencies are asked about the State's or Territory's progress in meeting its goals as reported in the CCDF Plan, and provide available data on the results of those activities. Specifically, this report will: (1) Ensure accountability for the use of CCDF quality funds, including a set-aside for quality infant and toddler care that begins in FY 2017; (2) track progress toward meeting State- and Territory-set indicators and benchmarks for improvement of child care quality per what they described in their CCDF Plans; (3) summarize how the Lead Agency is building a progression of professional development for child care providers as envisioned in the CCDBG Act of 2014 and CCDF final rule; and (4) inform federal technical assistance efforts and decisions regarding strategic use of quality funds.

    The Office of Child Care (OCC) has given thoughtful consideration to the comments received during the 60-day Public Comment Period and has revised the QPR to better align with the new program requirements made under the CCDBG Act of 2014 and the final rule. The revised document also contains additional guidance and clarification where appropriate in order to improve the quality of information that is being collected. Note: A correction was also made to the burden hours. This 30-day Public Comment Period provides an opportunity for the public to submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    Respondents: State and Territory CCDF Lead Agencies (56).

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    CCDF QPR 56 1 60.0 3,360

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,360 hours.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20765 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0007] Fee for Using a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2018 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the fee rate for using a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to determine and collect rare pediatric disease priority review user fees for certain applications for review of human drug or biological products when those applications use a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher. These vouchers are awarded to the sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet all of the requirements of this program and that are submitted 90 days or more after July 9, 2012, upon FDA approval of such applications. The amount of the fee for using a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher is determined each FY, based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous FY and the average cost incurred in the review of an application that is not subject to priority review in the previous FY. This notice establishes the rare pediatric disease priority review fee rate for FY 2018 and outlines the payment procedures for such fees.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert J. Marcarelli, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14202F, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7223.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 908 of FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144) added section 529 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff). In section 529 of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of new human drugs and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain rare pediatric diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act, the sponsor of an eligible human drug application submitted 90 days or more after July 9, 2012, for a rare pediatric disease (as defined in section 529(a)(3)) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the rare pediatric disease product application. The recipient of a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher may either use the voucher for a future human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), or transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another party. The voucher may be transferred (including by sale) repeatedly until it ultimately is used for a human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act. A priority review is a review conducted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Information regarding PDUFA goals is available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm511438.pdf.

    The applicant that uses a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher is entitled to a priority review of its eligible human drug application, but must pay FDA a rare pediatric disease priority review user fee in addition to any user fee required by PDUFA for the application. Information regarding the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program is available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm375479.htm.

    This notice establishes the rare pediatric disease priority review fee rate for FY 2018 at $2,830,579 and outlines FDA's procedures for payment of rare pediatric disease priority review user fees. This rate is effective on October 1, 2017, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2018.

    II. Rare Pediatric Priority Review User Fee for FY 2018

    Under section 529(c)(2) of the FD&C Act, the amount of the rare pediatric disease priority review user fee is determined each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.

    A priority review is a review conducted with a PDUFA goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of the applications granted priority review status within this expedited timeframe. Normally, an application for a human drug or biological product will qualify for priority review if the product is intended to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. An application that does not receive a priority designation will receive a standard review. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of standard applications within 10 months of the receipt or filing date depending on the type of application. A priority review involves a more intensive level of effort and a higher level of resources than a standard review.

    FDA is setting a fee for FY 2018, which is to be based on standard cost data from the previous fiscal year, FY 2017. However, the FY 2017 submission cohort has not been closed out yet, thus the cost data for FY 2017 are not complete. The latest year for which FDA has complete cost data is FY 2016. Furthermore, because FDA has never tracked the cost of reviewing applications that get priority review as a separate cost subset, FDA estimated this cost based on other data that the Agency has tracked. FDA uses data that the Agency estimates and publishes on its Web site each year—standard costs for review. FDA does not publish a standard cost for “the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.” However, we expect all such applications would contain clinical data. The standard cost application categories with clinical data that FDA publishes each year are: (1) New drug applications (NDAs) for a new molecular entity (NME) with clinical data and (2) biologics license applications (BLAs).

    The standard cost worksheets for FY 2016 show standard costs (rounded to the nearest hundred dollars) of $5,929,100 for an NME NDA, and $4,887,100 for a BLA. Based on these standard costs, the total cost to review the 49 applications in these two categories in FY 2016 (27 NME NDAs with clinical data and 22 BLAs) was $267,601,900. (Note: These numbers exclude the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief NDAs; no investigational new drug (IND) review costs are included in this amount.) 23 of these applications (14 NDAs and 9 BLAs) received priority review, which would mean that the remaining 26 received standard reviews. Because a priority review compresses a review schedule that ordinarily takes 10 months into 6 months, FDA estimates that a multiplier of 1.67 (10 months divided by 6 months) should be applied to non-priority review costs in estimating the effort and cost of a priority review as compared to a standard review. This multiplier is consistent with published research on this subject which supports a priority review multiplier in the range of 1.48 to 2.35 (Ref. 1). Using FY 2016 figures, the costs of a priority and standard review are estimated using the following formula:

    (23 α × 1.67) + (26 α) = $267,601,900 where “α” is the cost of a standard review and “α times 1.67” is the cost of a priority review. Using this formula, the cost of a standard review for NME NDAs and BLAs is calculated to be $4,154,664 (rounded to the nearest dollar) and the cost of a priority review for NME NDAs and BLAs is 1.67 times that amount, or $6,938,289 (rounded to the nearest dollar). The difference between these two cost estimates, or $2,783,625, represents the incremental cost of conducting a priority review rather than a standard review.

    For the FY 2018 fee, FDA will need to adjust the FY 2016 incremental cost by the average amount by which FDA's average costs increased in the 3 years prior to FY 2017, to adjust the FY 2016 amount for cost increases in FY 2017. That adjustment, published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43244), setting the FY 2018 PDUFA fee, is 1.6868 percent for the most recent year, not compounded. Increasing the FY 2016 incremental priority review cost of $2,783,625 by 1.6868 percent (or 0.016868) results in an estimated cost of $2,830,579 (rounded to the nearest dollar). This is the rare pediatric disease priority review user fee amount for FY 2018 that must be submitted with a priority review voucher for a human drug application in FY 2018, in addition to any PDUFA fee that is required for such an application.

    III. Fee Schedule for FY 2018

    The fee rate for FY 2018 is set out in Table 1:

    Table 1—Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Schedule for FY 2018 Fee category Fee rate for
  • FY 2018
  • Application submitted with a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher in addition to the normal PDUFA fee $2,830,579
    IV. Implementation of Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review User Fee

    Under section 529(c)(4)(A) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due (i.e. the obligation to pay the fee is incurred) when a sponsor notifies FDA of its intent to use the voucher. Section 529(c)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act specifies that the application will be considered incomplete if the priority review user fee and all other applicable user fees are not paid in accordance with FDA payment procedures. In addition, section 529(c)(4)(C) specifies that FDA may not grant a waiver, exemption, reduction, or refund of any fees due and payable under this section of the FD&C Act. Beginning with FDA's appropriation for FY 2015, the annual appropriation language states specifically that “priority review user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 360n [i.e., section 524 of the FD&C Act] and 360ff [i.e., section 529 of the FD&C Act] shall be credited to this account, to remain available until expended.” (Pub. L. 113-235, Section 5, Division A, Title VI).

    The rare pediatric disease priority review fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application that is received on or after October 1, 2017. In order to comply with this requirement, the sponsor must notify FDA 90 days prior to submission of the human drug application that is the subject of a priority review voucher of an intent to submit the human drug application, including the date on which the sponsor intends to submit the application.

    Upon receipt of this notification, FDA will issue an invoice to the sponsor who has incurred a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee. The invoice will include instructions on how to pay the fee via wire transfer or check.

    As noted in section II, if a sponsor uses a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher for a human drug application, the sponsor would incur the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee in addition to any PDUFA fee that is required for the application. The sponsor would need to follow FDA's normal procedures for timely payment of the PDUFA fee for the human drug application.

    Payment must be made in U.S. currency by electronic check, check, bank draft, wire transfer, credit card, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at https://userfees.fda.gov/pay (Note: Only full payments are accepted. No partial payments can be made online). Once you search for your invoice, select “Pay Now” to be redirected to Pay.gov. Note that electronic payment options are based on the balance due. Payment by credit card is available for balances that are less than $25,000. If the balance exceeds this amount, only the ACH option is available. Payments must be made using U.S bank accounts as well as U.S. credit cards.

    If paying with a paper check the invoice number should be included on the check, followed by the words “Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review.” All paper checks must be in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank made payable and mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979107, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    If checks are sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver the checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979107, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This U.S. Bank address is for courier delivery only. If you have any questions concerning courier delivery contact the U.S. Bank at 314-418-4013. This telephone number is only for questions about courier delivery). The FDA post office box number (P.O. Box 979107) must be written on the check. If needed, FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965.

    If paying by wire transfer, please reference your invoice number when completing your transfer. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full. The account information is as follows: U.S. Dept. of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account Number: 75060099, Routing Number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., 14th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

    V. Reference

    The following reference is on display in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    1. Ridley, D.B., H.G. Grabowski, and J.L. Moe, “Developing Drugs for Developing Countries,” Health Affairs, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 313-324, 2006. Dated: September 22, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20798 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1119] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Canning Establishment Registration, Process Filing, and Recordkeeping for Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods in Hermetically Sealed Containers AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by October 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0037. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    I. Background Food Canning Establishment Registration, Process Filing, and Recordkeeping for Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods in Hermetically Sealed Containers 21 CFR 108.25 and 108.35, and Parts 113 and 114 OMB Control Number 0910-0037—Extension

    Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342) deems a food to be adulterated, in part, if the food bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health. Section 301(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a)) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated food. Under section 404 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 344), our regulations require registration of food processing establishments, filing of process or other data, and maintenance of processing and production records for acidified foods and thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers. These requirements are intended to ensure safe manufacturing, processing, and packing procedures, and to permit us to verify that these procedures are being followed. Improperly processed low-acid foods present life-threatening hazards if contaminated with foodborne microorganisms, especially Clostridium botulinum. The spores of C. botulinum need to be destroyed or inhibited to avoid production of the deadly toxin that causes botulism. This is accomplished with good manufacturing procedures, which must include the use of adequate heat processes or other means of preservation.

    To protect the public health, our regulations require that each firm that manufactures, processes, or packs acidified foods or thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers for introduction into interstate commerce register the establishment with us using Form FDA 2541 (§§ 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(2) (21 CFR 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(2)). In addition to registering the plant, each firm is required to provide data on the processes used to produce these foods, using Forms FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, and FDA 2541f for all methods except aseptic processing, or Form FDA 2541g for aseptic processing of low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers (§§ 108.25(c)(2) and 108.35(c)(2)). Plant registration and process filing may be accomplished simultaneously. Process data must be filed prior to packing any new product, and operating processes and procedures must be posted near the processing equipment or made available to the operator (21 CFR 113.87(a)).

    Regulations in parts 108, 113, and 114 (21 CFR parts 108, 113, and 114) require firms to maintain records showing adherence to the substantive requirements of the regulations. These records must be made available to FDA on request. Firms also must document corrective actions when process controls and procedures do not fall within specified limits (§§ 113.89, 114.89, and 114.100(c)); to report any instance of potential health-endangering spoilage, process deviation, or contamination with microorganisms where any lot of the food has entered distribution in commerce (§§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e)); and to develop and keep on file plans for recalling products that may endanger the public health (§§ 108.25(e) and 108.35(f)). To permit lots to be traced after distribution, acidified foods and thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers must be marked with an identifying code (§ 113.60(c)) (thermally processed foods) and § 114.80(b) (acidified foods)).

    The records of processing information are periodically reviewed during factory inspections by FDA to verify fulfillment of the requirements in parts 113 or 114. Scheduled thermal processes are examined and reviewed to determine their adequacy to protect public health. In the event of a public health emergency, records are used to pinpoint potentially hazardous foods rapidly and thus limit recall activity to affected lots.

    As described in our regulations, processors may obtain the paper versions of Forms FDA 2541, FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA 2541g by contacting us at a particular address or by visiting https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/AcidifiedLACFRegistration/ucm2007436.htm. Processors mail completed paper forms to us. However, processors who are subject to § 108.25, § 108.35, or both, have an option to submit Forms FDA 2541, FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA 2541g electronically (Ref. 1).

    Although we encourage commercial processors to use the electronic submission system for plant registration and process filing, we will continue to make paper-based forms available. To standardize the burden associated with process filing, regardless of whether the process filing is submitted electronically or using a paper form, we are offering the public the opportunity to use four forms, each of which pertains to a specific type of commercial processing and is available both on the electronic submission system and as a paper-based form. The electronic submission system and paper-based form “mirror” each other to the extent practicable. The four process filing forms are as follows:

    • Form FDA 2541d (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Retorted Method) (Ref. 2);

    • Form FDA 2541e (Food Process Filing for Acidified Method) (Ref. 3);

    • Form FDA 2541f (Food Process Filing for Water Activity/Formulation Control Method) (Ref. 4); and

    • Form FDA 2541g (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Aseptic Systems) (Ref. 5).

    At this time, the paper-based versions of the four forms and their instructions are all available for review as references to this document (Refs. 2 through 5) or at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/AcidifiedLACFRegistration/ucm2007436.htm.

    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this information collection are commercial processors and packers of acidified foods and thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers.

    In the Federal Register of June 20, 2017 (82 FR 28069), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. While no comments were submitted to the docket, it was noted that the notice included an inadvertent reference to outdated forms. We regret this oversight and have made appropriate corrections in this notice. The forms developed in support of the information collection are intended to minimize burden on respondents while maximizing utility for FDA, and thus we are continuously open to suggestions on how they might be improved.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section FDA
  • form number
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Total hours
    §§ 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(2); Food canning establishment registration 2541 645 1 645 0.17
  • (10)
  • 110
    § 108.25(c)(2); Food process filing for acidified method 2541e 726 11 7,986 0.333
  • (20)
  • 2,659
    § 108.35(c)(2); Food process filing for low-acid retorted method 2541d 336 12 4,032 0.333
  • (20)
  • 1,343
    § 108.35(c)(2); Food process filing for water activity/formulation control method 2541f 37 6 222 0.333
  • (20)
  • 74
    § 108.35(c)(2); Food process filing for low-acid aseptic systems 2541g 42 22 924 0.75
  • (45)
  • 693
    §§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e); Report of any instance of potential health endangering spoilage, process deviation, or contamination with microorganisms where any lot of the food has entered distribution in commerce N/A 1 1 1 4 4 Total 4,883 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA bases its estimate of the number of respondents in table 1 on registrations, process filings, and reports received over the past 3 years. The hours per response reporting estimates are based on our experience with similar programs and information received from industry. The reporting burden for §§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e) is minimal because notification of spoilage, process deviation, or contamination of product in distribution occurs less than once a year. Most firms discover these problems before the product is distributed, and are therefore not required to report the occurrence. We estimate that we will receive one report annually under §§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e). The report is expected to take 4 hours per response, for a total of 4 hours.

    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR part Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total annual
  • records
  • Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    108, 113, and 114 10,392 1 10,392 250 2,598,000 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA bases its estimate of 10,392 recordkeepers in table 2 on its records of the number of registered firms, excluding firms that were inactive or out of business, yet still registered. To avoid double-counting, we have not included estimates for §§ 108.25(g), 108.35(c)(2)(ii), and 108.35(h) because they merely cross-reference recordkeeping requirements contained in parts 113 and 114 and have been accounted for in the recordkeeping burden estimate. We estimate that 10,392 firms will expend approximately 250 hours per year to fully satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in parts 108, 113 and 114, for a total of 2,598,000 hours.

    Finally, our regulations require that processors mark thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers (§ 113.60(c)) and acidified foods (§ 114.80(b)) with an identifying code to permit lots to be traced after distribution. We seek OMB approval of the third-party disclosure requirements in §§ 113.60(c) and 114.80(b). However, we have not included a separate table to report the estimated burden of these regulations. No burden has been estimated for the third-party disclosure requirements in §§ 113.60(c) and 114.80(b) because the coding process is done as a usual and customary part of normal business activities. Coding is a business practice in foods for liability purposes, inventory control, and process control in the event of a problem. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information are excluded from the burden estimate if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and customary because they would occur in the normal course of activities. The burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.

    II. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov/. FDA has verified the Web site addresses as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. FDA 2016. “Guidance for Industry: Submitting Form FDA 2541 (Food Canning Establishment Registration) and Forms FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA 2541g (Food Process Filing Forms) to FDA in Electronic or Paper Format.” Available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/AcidifiedLACF/ucm309376.htm. 2. Form FDA 2541d. Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Retorted Method. Available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM465591.pdf. 3. Form FDA 2541e. Food Process Filing for Acidified Method. Available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM465593.pdf. 4. Form FDA 2541f. Food Process Filing for Water Activity/Formulation Control Method. Available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM465595.pdf. 5. Form FDA 2541g. Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Aseptic Systems. Available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM465598.pdf. Dated: September 22, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20791 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0007] Fee for Using a Tropical Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2018 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the fee rates for using a tropical disease priority review voucher for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), authorizes FDA to determine and collect priority review user fees for certain applications for approval of drug or biological products when those applications use a tropical disease priority review voucher awarded by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These vouchers are awarded to the sponsors of certain tropical disease product applications, submitted after September 27, 2007, upon FDA approval of such applications. The amount of the fee submitted to FDA with applications using a tropical disease priority review voucher is determined each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred in the review of an application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year. This notice establishes the tropical disease priority review fee rate for FY 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert J. Marcarelli, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14202F, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7223.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 1102 of FDAAA (Pub. L. 110-85) added section 524 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n). In section 524, Congress encouraged development of new drug and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain tropical diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 524, the sponsor of an eligible human drug application submitted after September 27, 2007, for a tropical disease (as defined in section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C Act), shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the tropical disease product application. The recipient of a tropical disease priority review voucher may either use the voucher with a future submission to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another party. The voucher may be transferred (including by sale) repeatedly until it ultimately is used for a human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act. A priority review is a review conducted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending upon the type of application. Information regarding the PDUFA goals is available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm511438.pdf.

    The applicant that uses a priority review voucher is entitled to a priority review but must pay FDA a priority review user fee in addition to any other fee required by PDUFA. FDA published guidance on its Web site about how this tropical disease priority review voucher program operates (available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm080599.pdf).

    This notice establishes the tropical disease priority review fee rate for FY 2018 as $2,830,579 and outlines FDA's process for implementing the collection of the priority review user fees. This rate is effective on October 1, 2017, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2018, for applications submitted with a tropical disease priority review voucher. The payment of this priority review user fee is required in addition to the payment of any other fee that would normally apply to such an application under PDUFA before FDA will consider the application complete and acceptable for filing.

    II. Tropical Disease Priority Review User Fee for FY 2018

    FDA interprets section 524(c)(2) of the FD&C Act as requiring that FDA determine the amount of the tropical disease priority review user fee each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.

    A priority review is a review conducted with a PDUFA goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of the applications granted priority review status within this expedited timeframe. Normally, an application for a human drug or biological product will qualify for priority review if the product is intended to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. An application that does not receive a priority designation will receive a standard review. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of standard applications within 10 months of the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. A priority review involves a more intensive level of effort and a higher level of resources than a standard review.

    FDA is setting fees for FY 2018, and the previous fiscal year is FY 2017. However, the FY 2017 submission cohort has not been closed out yet, and the cost data for FY 2017 are not complete. The latest year for which FDA has complete cost data is FY 2016. Furthermore, because FDA has never tracked the cost of reviewing applications that get priority review as a separate cost subset, FDA estimated this cost based on other data that the Agency has tracked. FDA uses data that the Agency estimates and publishes on its Web site each year—standard costs for review. FDA does not publish a standard cost for “the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.” However, we expect all such applications would contain clinical data. The standard cost application categories with clinical data that FDA does publish each year are: (1) New drug applications (NDAs) for a new molecular entity (NME) with clinical data and (2) biologics license applications (BLAs).

    The worksheets for standard costs for FY 2016, show a standard cost (rounded to the nearest hundred dollars) of $5,929,100 for a NME NDA and $4,887,100 for a BLA. Based on these standard costs, the total cost to review the 49 applications in these two categories in FY 2016 (27 NME NDAs with clinical data and 22 BLAs) was $267,601,900. (Note: These numbers exclude the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief NDAs; no investigational new drug review costs are included in this amount.) Twenty-three of these applications (14 NDAs and 9 BLAs) received priority review, which would mean that the remaining 26 received standard reviews. Because a priority review compresses a review that ordinarily takes 10 months into 6 months, FDA estimates that a multiplier of 1.67 (10 months divided by 6 months) should be applied to non-priority review costs in estimating the effort and cost of a priority review as compared to a standard review. This multiplier is consistent with published research on this subject which supports a priority review multiplier in the range of 1.48 to 2.35 (Ref. 1). Using FY 2016 figures, the costs of a priority and standard review are estimated using the following formula:

    (23 α × 1.67) + (26 α) = $267,601,900 where “α” is the cost of a standard review and “α times 1.67” is the cost of a priority review. Using this formula, the cost of a standard review for NME NDAs and BLAs is calculated to be $4,154,664 (rounded to the nearest dollar) and the cost of a priority review for NME NDAs and BLAs is 1.67 times that amount, or $6,938,289 (rounded to the nearest dollar). The difference between these two cost estimates, or $2,783,625, represents the incremental cost of conducting a priority review rather than a standard review.

    For the FY 2018 fee, FDA will need to adjust the FY 2016 incremental cost by the average amount by which FDA's average costs increased in the 3 years prior to FY 2017, to adjust the FY 2016 amount for cost increases in FY 2017. That adjustment, published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2016 (see 81 FR 49674 at 49676), setting FY 2018 PDUFA fees, is 1.6868 percent for the most recent year, not compounded. Increasing the FY 2016 incremental priority review cost of $2,783,625 by 1.6868 percent (or 0.016868) results in an estimated cost of $2,830,579 (rounded to the nearest dollar). This is the tropical disease priority review user fee amount for FY 2018 that must be submitted with a priority review voucher for a human drug application in FY 2018, in addition to any PDUFA fee that is required for such an application.

    III. Fee Schedule for FY 2018

    The fee rate for FY 2018 is set out in table 1:

    Table 1—Tropical Disease Priority Review Schedule for FY 2018 Fee category Fee rate for
  • FY 2018
  • Application submitted with a tropical disease priority review voucher in addition to the normal PDUFA fee $2,830,579
    IV. Implementation of Tropical Disease Priority Review User Fee

    Under section 524(c)(4)(A) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due upon submission of a human drug application for which the priority review voucher is used. Section 524(c)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act specifies that the application will be considered incomplete if the priority review user fee and all other applicable user fees are not paid in accordance with FDA payment procedures. In addition, FDA may not grant a waiver, exemption, reduction, or refund of any fees due and payable under section 524 of the FD&C Act (see section 524(c)(4)(C)) and FDA may not collect priority review voucher fees “except to the extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts.” (Section 524(c)(5)(B) of the FD&C Act.) Beginning with FDA's appropriation for FY 2009, the annual appropriation language states specifically that “priority review user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 360n [i.e., section 524 of the FD&C Act] may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended.” (Pub. L. 111-8, Section 5, Division A, Title VI).

    The tropical disease priority review fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application that is received on or after October 1, 2017, and submitted with a priority review voucher. This fee must be paid in addition to any other fee due under PDUFA. Payment should be made in U.S. currency by electronic check, check, bank draft, wire transfer, credit card, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at https://userfees.fda.gov/pay. (Note: Only full payments are accepted. No partial payments can be made online). Once you search for your invoice, select “Pay Now” to be redirected to Pay.gov. Note that electronic payment options are based on the balance due. Payment by credit card is available for balances that are less than $25,000. If the balance exceeds this amount, only the ACH option is available. Payments should be made using U.S bank accounts as well as U.S. credit cards.

    FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to use Pay.gov, a web-based payment application, for online electronic payment. The Pay.gov feature is available on the FDA Web site after the user fee ID number is generated.

    If paying with a paper check the user fee identification (ID) number should be included on the check, followed by the words “Tropical Disease Priority Review.” All paper checks should be in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank made payable and mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979107, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    If checks are sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver the checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979107, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This U.S. Bank address is for courier delivery only.) If you have any questions concerning courier delivery, contact the U.S. Bank at 314-418-4013. (This telephone number is only for questions about courier delivery). The FDA post office box number (P.O. Box 979107) must be written on the check. If needed, FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965.

    If paying by wire transfer, please reference your unique user fee ID number when completing your transfer. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee, it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full. The account information is as follows: U.S. Dept. of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account Number: 75060099, Routing Number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., 14th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

    V. Reference

    The following reference is on display in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    1. Ridley, D.B., H.G. Grabowski, and J.L. Moe, “Developing Drugs for Developing Countries,” Health Affairs, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 313-324, 2006. Dated: September 22, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20799 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0001] Request for Nominations on Public Advisory Panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of nonvoting industry representatives to serve on certain panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (MDAC or Committee) in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for nonvoting industry representatives to serve on certain device panels of the MDAC in the CDRH. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for current and upcoming vacancies effective with this notice.

    DATES:

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests must send a letter stating that interest to the FDA by October 30, 2017 (see sections I and II of this document for further details). Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by October 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    All statements of interest from industry organizations interested in participating in the selection process of nonvoting industry representative nomination should be sent to Margaret Ames (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). All nominations for nonvoting industry representatives should be submitted electronically by accessing the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm or by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming a member of an FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Ames, Division of Workforce Management, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5264, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5960, Fax: 301-847-8505, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Agency is requesting nominations for nonvoting industry representatives to the panels listed in the table in this document.

    I. Medical Devices Advisory Committee

    The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes recommendations for their regulation. The panels engage in a number of activities to fulfill the functions the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) envisions for device advisory panels. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, advises the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) regarding recommended classification or reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories; advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of devices; advises on formulation of product development protocols; reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices; reviews guidelines and guidance documents; recommends exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the FD&C Act; advises on the necessity to ban a device; and responds to requests from the agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner on issues relating to the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices. The Committee also provides recommendations to the Commissioner or designee on complexity categorization of in vitro diagnostics under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988.

    Panels Function Circulatory System Devices Panel Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices for use in the circulatory and vascular systems and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational in vitro devices for use in clinical laboratory medicine including clinical toxicology, clinical chemistry, endocrinology, and oncology and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational gastroenterology, urology, and nephrology devices and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. General Hospital and Personal Use Devices Panel Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational general hospital, infection control, and personal use devices and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices for use in obstetrics and gynecology and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Ophthalmic Devices Panel Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices for use in the eye and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. II. Qualifications

    Persons nominated for the device panels should be full-time employees of firms that manufacture products that would come before the panel, or consulting firms that represent manufacturers, or have similar appropriate ties to industry.

    III. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching a complete list of all such organizations; and a list of all nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry interests for a particular device panel. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

    IV. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and the name of the panel of interest should be sent to the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating in the selection process for the particular device panels listed in the table. (Persons who nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not participate in the selection process).

    FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.

    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20778 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [Document Identifier: OS-0990-0330] Agency Information Collection Request. 60-Day Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before November 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202)795-7714.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-0330-60D and project title for reference, to [email protected], the Reports Clearance Officer Sherrette Funn, call 202-795-7714.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Title: Appellant Climate Survey, Revision.

    Abstract: The Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) requests revision to a previously approved information collection request from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The annual OMHA Appellant Climate Survey is a survey of Medicare beneficiaries, providers, suppliers, or their representatives who participated in a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from OMHA. Appellants dissatisfied with the outcome of their Level 2 Medicare appeal may request a hearing before an OMHA ALJ. The Appellant Climate Survey will be used to measure appellant satisfaction with their OMHA appeals experience, as opposed to their satisfaction with a specific ruling. OMHA was established by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173) and became operational on July 1, 2005. The MMA legislation and implementing regulations issued on March 8, 2007 instituted a number of changes in the appeals process. The MMA legislation also directed HHS to consider the feasibility of conducting hearings using telephone or video-teleconference (VTC) technologies. In carrying out this mandate, OMHA makes use of both teleconferencing and VTC to provide appellants with a vast nationwide network of access points for hearings close to their homes. The first 3-year administration cycle of the OMHA survey began in fiscal year (FY) 2008, a second 3-year cycle began in FY2011, and third 3-year cycle began in FY2014. The survey will continue to be conducted annually over a 3-year period with the next data collection cycle beginning in FY2018. Data collection instruments and recruitment materials will be offered in English and Spanish. Total burden for survey respondents is 100.00 hours each year.

    Affected Public: Survey respondents will consist of Medicare beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (i.e., providers, suppliers), who participated in a hearing before an OMHA ALJ. OMHA will draw a representative, non-redundant sample of appellants whose cases have been closed in the last 6 months.

    EN28SE17.003 Terry S. Clark, Office of the Secretary, Asst. Paperwork Reduction Act Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20738 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-46-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 AGENCY:

    Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the next federal advisory committee meeting regarding the development of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030. This meeting will be held online via webinar and is open to the public. The Committee will discuss the nation's health promotion and disease prevention objectives and will provide recommendations to improve health status and reduce health risks for the nation by the year 2030. The Committee will advise the Secretary on the Healthy People 2030 mission, vision, framework, and organizational structure. The Committee will provide advice regarding criteria for identifying a more focused set of measurable, nationally representative objectives. The Committee's advice must assist the Secretary in reducing the number of objectives while ensuring that the selection criteria identifies the most critical public health issues that are high-impact priorities supported by current national data.

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet on October 16, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held online via webinar. To register to attend the meeting, please visit the Healthy People Web site at http://www.healthypeople.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emmeline Ochiai, Designated Federal Official, Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Room LL-100, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8280 (telephone), (240) 453-8281 (fax). Additional information is available on the Healthy People Web site at http://www.healthypeople.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The names and biographies of the Committee members are available at https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/history-development/healthy-people-2030-advisory-committee.

    Purpose of Meeting: Through the Healthy People initiative, HHS leverages scientific insights and lessons from the past decade, along with new knowledge of current data, trends, and innovations, to develop the next iteration of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Healthy People provides science-based, 10-year national objectives for promoting health and preventing disease. Since 1979, Healthy People has set and monitored national health objectives that meet a broad range of health needs, encourage collaboration across sectors, guide individuals toward making informed health decisions, and measure the impact of our prevention and health promotion activities. Healthy People 2030 health objectives will reflect assessments of major risks to health and wellness, changing public health priorities, and emerging technologies related to our nation's health preparedness and prevention.

    Public Participation at Meeting: Members of the public are invited to join the online Committee meeting. There will be no opportunity for oral public comments during this online Committee meeting. However, written comments are welcome throughout the entire development process of the national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030 and may be emailed to [email protected].

    To join the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Healthy People Web site at http://www.healthypeople.gov. Participation in the meeting is limited. Registrations will be accepted until maximum webinar capacity is reached and must be completed by 9:00 a.m. ET on October 13, 2017. A waiting list will be maintained should registrations exceed capacity and those individuals will be contacted as additional space for the meeting becomes available. Registration questions may be directed to: Kate Fromknecht at [email protected] or (301) 634-9384.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 217a. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App.) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Don Wright, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, (Disease Prevention and Health Promotion).
    [FR Doc. 2017-20781 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Notice of Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee Meeting SUMMARY:

    The Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee (DMICC) will hold a meeting on October 25, 2017. The subject of the meeting will be “Enhancing Opportunities in Addressing Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Disparities.” The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on October 25, 2017; from 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Individuals wanting to present oral comments must notify the contact person at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in NIH campus, Building 31, Conference Room 6C6, Bethesda, Maryland.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information concerning this meeting, see the DMICC Web site, www.diabetescommittee.gov, or contact Dr. B. Tibor Roberts, Executive Secretary of the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 31 Center Drive, Building 31A, Room 9A19, MSC 2560, Bethesda, MD 20892-2560, telephone: 301-496-6623; FAX: 301-480-6741; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The DMICC, chaired by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) comprising members of the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that support diabetes-related activities, facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on diabetes among government entities. DMICC meetings, held several times a year, provide an opportunity for Committee members to learn about and discuss current and future diabetes programs in DMICC member organizations and to identify opportunities for collaboration. The October 25, 2017 DMICC meeting will focus on Enhancing Opportunities in Addressing Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Disparities.

    Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the contact person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives or organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present; oral comments and presentations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Because of time constraints for the meeting, oral comments will be allowed on a first-come, first-serve basis.

    Members of the public who would like to receive email notification about future DMICC meetings should register for the listserv available on the DMICC Web site, www.diabetescommittee.gov.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. B. Tibor Roberts, Executive Secretary, DMICC, Office of Scientific Program and Policy Analysis, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20734 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Chemosensory Neuroscience.

    Date: October 10, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: John Bishop, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5182, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408-9664, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Respiratory Integrative Biology and Translational Research Study Section.

    Date: October 17-18, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA 92109.

    Contact Person: Bradley Nuss, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4142, MSC7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-8754, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics on Diseases of Metabolism.

    Date: October 18, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Liliana Norma Berti-Mattera, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm 4215, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7609, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Cell Biology Integrated Review Group; Intercellular Interactions Study Section.

    Date: October 19-20, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Wallace Ip, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5128, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1191, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Myocardial Ischemia and Metabolism Study Section.

    Date: October 19-20, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Kimm Hamann, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118A, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-5575, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Cell Biology Integrated Review Group; Cellular Signaling and Regulatory Systems Study Section.

    Date: October 23-24, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Elena Smirnova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5187, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-357-9112, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Molecular and Cellular Hematology.

    Date: October 23, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The William F. Bolger Center, 9600 Newbridge Drive, Potomac, MD 20854.

    Contact Person: Katherine M Malinda, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4140, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0912, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Pregnancy and Neonatology Study Section.

    Date: October 24-25, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Michael Knecht, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6176, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1046, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Acute Neural Injury and Epilepsy Study Section.

    Date: October 24-25, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Seetha Bhagavan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237-9838, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Neurobiology of Learning and Memory Study Section.

    Date: October 24, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Nicholas Gaiano, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5178, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892-7844, 301-435-1033, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Cellular, Molecular and Integrative Reproduction Study Section.

    Date: October 24-25, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Gary Hunnicutt, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6164, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0229, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Population Sciences and Epidemiology Integrated Review Group; Cancer, Heart, and Sleep Epidemiology B Study Section.

    Date: October 24-25, 2017.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Gniesha Yvonne Dinwiddie, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3137, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 22, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20763 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLWYP07000.L14400000.FR0000 17X] Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Non-Competitive Lease of Public Land in Johnson County, WY AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Buffalo Field Office, proposes to lease a parcel of public land totaling 0.87 acres in Johnson County, Wyoming, for residential purposes. The subject parcel was inadvertently developed by the adjacent landowner (proposed lessee) as a residence without authorization. The area has a long history of occupancy and the proposed lease would provide the BLM with a reasonable option to resolve the continued unauthorized use of the affected public land. The BLM proposes to lease the lands for not less than the fair market value to N. Pearl Ross. The BLM Buffalo Resource Management Plan, dated September 22, 2015, does not exclude the subject parcel from the authorized officer's discretion to consider lease proposals in the subject area.

    DATES:

    Written comments may be submitted to the address below. The BLM must receive your comments on or before November 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments concerning the proposed lease to the Field Manager, BLM, Buffalo Field Office, 1425 Fort Street, Buffalo, Wyoming 82834.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Claire Oliverius, Realty Specialist, at the address above, or by telephone at 307-684-1178, or by email at [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The BLM has determined that the parcel of land described below is suitable for consideration as a residential lease under Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1732) (FLPMA) and the implementing regulations at 43 CFR 2920.

    A parcel of land situated in lot 3, section 30, Township 44 North, Range 81 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, more particularly described as follows:

    Beginning at the center-west 1/16 section corner of said section 30, monumented with a BLM stainless steel post marked for said corner point;

    Thence, S. 89°32′ W., along the east and west center line of said section 30, a distance of 57 feet to an existing fence;

    Thence, S. 12°57′ W., along said fence, a distance of 84.8 feet to a point in said fence;

    Thence, N. 23°29′ W., a distance of 12.4 feet to a point;

    Thence, S. 66°31′ W., a distance of 5.0 feet to a point;

    Thence, S. 23°29′ E., a distance of 19 feet to the said fence;

    Thence, S. 12°57′ W., along said fence, a distance of 221 feet to intersection with an existing fence;

    Thence, S. 48°20′ E., along said intersecting fence, a distance of 126 feet to a corner in said fence;

    Thence, S. 23°11′ W., along said fence, a distance of 38 feet to a corner in said fence;

    Thence, S. 37°00′ E., along said fence, a distance of 81 feet to the north and south center line of the SW1/4 of said section 30;

    Thence, North, along said north and south center line, a distance of 489 feet to the Point of Beginning; containing approximately 0.87 acres of land.

    Basis of Bearing: True Meridian, determined from GPS/GNSS survey.

    Based on past use of the subject parcel for a residence owned by William D. and Bonnie S. Ross, and currently occupied by N. Pearl Ross, it is the authorized officer's decision to offer the proposed residential lease with appropriate terms and conditions to N. Pearl Ross on a non-competitive basis because competitive bidding would represent an unfair competitive and economic disadvantage to Ms. Ross. As noted above, the use of this parcel constitutes an inadvertent trespass that was discovered by the BLM in 2013. The Ross family has since worked with the BLM to settle the trespass and the proposed lessee will apply for a residential lease.

    Subsequent to the BLM's receipt of an application for leasing by N. Pearl Ross that complies with all applicable requirements set forth at 43 CFR 2920.5, processing of the proposed lease will take place in accordance with 43 CFR 2920.6, and other applicable regulations. Information and documentation regarding processing of the lease application is available as described in ADDRESSES, above, and reference should be made to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, to be conducted under Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-WY-P070-2016-0033-EA. The BLM will not make a final decision on the lease until all required analyses are completed. If authorized, the lease would be subject to provisions of the FLPMA, all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, including, but not limited to, 43 CFR part 2920, and to valid existing rights.

    Public comments regarding the proposed lease may be submitted in writing—see ADDRESSES above—on or before November 13, 2017.

    Comments received in electronic form, such as email or fax, will be considered. Any adverse comments regarding the proposed lease will be reviewed by the BLM Wyoming State Director or another authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in whole or in part. In the absence of timely filed objections, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 2920.4.

    Buddy W. Green, BLM Wyoming Acting Associate State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20793 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-17-044] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    Time and Date:

    October 4, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

    Place:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    Status:

    Open to the public.

    Matters to be Considered:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-683 (Fourth Review) (Fresh Garlic from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by October 19, 2017.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission:

    Issued: September 26, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20944 Filed 9-26-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-17-046] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    Time and Date:

    October 6, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

    Place:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    Status:

    Open to the public.

    Matters to be Considered:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-587 and 731-TA-1385-1386 (Preliminary) (Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on October 10, 2017; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on October 17, 2017.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission:

    Issued: September 26, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20946 Filed 9-26-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-17-045] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    Time and Date:

    October 5, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

    Place:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    Status:

    Open to the public.

    Matters to be Considered:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. No. TA-201-76 (Injury) (Large Residential Washers).

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 26, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20945 Filed 9-26-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1125-0010] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals From a Decision of a DHS Officer AGENCY:

    Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone: (703) 305-0470.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision and extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a Decision of a DHS Officer.

    3. The agency form number: EOIR-29 (OMB 1125-0010).

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: A party who appeals a decision of a DHS Officer to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board).

    Other: None.

    Abstract: A party affected by a decision of a DHS Officer may appeal that decision to the Board, provided that the Board has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.1(b). The party must complete the Form EOIR-29 and submit it to the DHS office having administrative control over the record of proceeding in order to exercise its regulatory right to appeal.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 5501 respondents complete the form annually with an average of 30 minutes per response for completion.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 2,750.5 annual burden hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Melody D. Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20812 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1110-0051] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Final Disposition Report (R-84), With Supplemental Questions R-84(a), R-84(b), R-84(c), R-84(d), R-84(e), R-84(f), R-84(g), R-84(h), R-84(i), and R-84(j) AGENCY:

    Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encourages and will be accepted for an additional 30 day until October 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, FBI, CJIS, Resources Management Section, Administrative Unit, Module C-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia, 26306 (facsimile: 304-625-5093). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Final Disposition Report.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Agency form number: R-84, with supplemental questions R-84(a), R-84(b), R-84(c), R-84(d), R-84(e), R-84(f), R-84(g), R-84(h), R-84(i), and R-84(j).

    Sponsoring component: Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: City, county, state, federal and tribal law enforcement agencies. This collection is needed to report completion of an arrest event. Acceptable data is stored as part of the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system of the FBI.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that 330,000 respondents will complete each form within approximately 5 minutes.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 27,500 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20813 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1125-0010] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals From a Decision of a DHS Officer AGENCY:

    Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jeff Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 20530; telephone: (703) 305-0470. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision and extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a Decision of a DHS Officer.

    3. The agency form number: EOIR-29 (OMB 1125-0010).

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: A party who appeals a decision of a DHS Officer to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board).

    Other: None.

    Abstract: A party affected by a decision of a DHS Officer may appeal that decision to the Board, provided that the Board has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.1(b). The party must complete the Form EOIR-29 and submit it to the DHS office having administrative control over the record of proceeding in order to exercise its regulatory right to appeal.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 5501 respondents complete the form annually with an average of 30 minutes per response for completion.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 2,750.5 annual burden hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Melody D. Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-20736 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with the Section 223 (19 U.S.C. 2273) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271, et seq.) (“Act”), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of the Act (“TAA”) for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of June 5, 2017 through August 18, 2017. (This Notice primarily follows the language of the Trade Act. In some places however, changes such as the inclusion of subheadings, a reorganization of language, or “and,” “or,” or other words are added for clarification.)

    Section 222(a)—Workers of a Primary Firm

    In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:

    (1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and (2(A) or 2(B) below)

    (2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:

    (A) Increased Imports Path

    (i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely; and (ii and iii below)

    (ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased or

    (II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; or

    (II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by such firm, have increased; or

    (III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased; and

    (iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or

    (B) Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services From a Foreign Country Path

    (i)(I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or

    (II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; and

    (ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.

    Section 222(b)—Adversely Affected Secondary Workers

    In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(b)) must be met, as follows:

    (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and

    (2) the workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4)); and

    (3) either—

    (A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

    (B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).

    Section 222(e)—Firms Identified by the International Trade Commission

    In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e)) must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:

    (1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—

    (A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1)); or

    (B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); or

    (C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A)); and

    (2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—

    (A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under section 202(f)(3) (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(3)); or

    (B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) is published in the Federal Register; and

    (3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—

    (A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or

    (B) not withstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).

    Affirmative Determinations for Trade Adjustment Assistance

    The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

    The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (Increased Imports Path) of the Trade Act have been met.

    TA-W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 90,314 Pacific Fir Lumber Company Sheridan, OR January 1, 2014. 91,659 Whiting Paper Company Menasha, WI April 1, 2015. 91,837 ConocoPhillips, Bartlesville Shared Services, Corporate Staff, TEKsystems, etc Bartlesville, OK May 23, 2015. 91,890 MI Swaco, Schlumberger Technology Corporation New Orleans, LA June 8, 2015. 91,922 Seattle-Snohomish Mill Co., Inc Snohomish, WA June 14, 2015. 92,195 Daimler Trucks North America, Mt. Holly Truck Manufacturing Plant Mt. Holly, NC August 18, 2015. 92,211 Petram Enterprises Inc Tualatin, OR September 14, 2015. 92,211A Petram Enterprises Inc., Aerotek Inc Sheridan, OR September 14, 2015. 92,463 Brayton Point Energy, LLC, Dynegy Resource III, LLC, Corestaff Somerset, MA December 5, 2015. 92,468 General Motors (GM), Lansing Grand River Assembly Plant, Development Dimensions International Lansing, MI July 22, 2017. 92,468A GM Subsystems Manufacturing, LLC, Development Dimensions International Lansing, MI December 7, 2015. 92,489 SuperGenius Industries, LLC Oregon City, OR December 13, 2015. 92,491 Sappi North America (S.D. Warren Company), Sappi Limited Allentown, PA May 21, 2016. 92,503 Asurion Services, LLC, Work at Home Employees, N.E.W. Customer Service Companies, LLC Nashville, TN December 22, 2015. 92,617 Aero-Mach Labs, Inc Wichita, KS February 7, 2016. 92,627 Ameridial Inc Spindale, NC February 7, 2016. 92,656 Hyundai Rotem USA Corporation, Hyundai Rotem Company, Aerotek Philadelphia, PA February 21, 2016. 92,661 McFarland Cascade Holdings, Inc., Stella-Jones Corporation Rochester, WA February 15, 2016. 92,661A McFarland Cascade Holdings, Inc., Stella-Jones Corporation Arlington, WA February 15, 2016. 92,661B McFarland Cascade Holdings, Inc., Stella-Jones Corporation Shelton, WA February 15, 2016. 92,700 Inteva Products, LLC, The Renco Group, Inc., The Bartech Group Adrian, MI March 6, 2016. 92,742 Panasonic Appliances Company of America, Panasonic Corporation of North America Danville, KY March 18, 2016. 92,761 Streamline International, Convergys Corporation Wilsonville, OR March 24, 2016. 92,769 River Steel, Inc West Salem, La Crosse, WI March 14, 2016. 92,789 U.S. Steel Seamless Tubular Operations, LLC, Lorain Tubular Operations, United States Steel Corporation Lorain, OH July 3, 2016. 92,795 Piqua Champion Foundry, Inc Piqua, OH April 5, 2016. 92,799 Chippewa Shoe Company, LLC, Justin Brands, Inc Bangor, ME April 5, 2016. 92,801 Fiat Chrysler America (FCA), Sterling Heights Assembly Plant Sterling Heights, MI April 6, 2016. 92,824 INDSPEC Chemical Corporation, INDSPEC Holding Corporation, Occidental Chemical Holding Corporation, etc Petrolia, PA April 13, 2016. 92,840 ESCO Company, LLC, Mitsui Chemicals America, Inc Muskegon, MI April 25, 2016. 92,843 Majestic Wood Products II, LLC White City, OR April 25, 2016. 92,864 Canam Steel Corporation, Canam US Holdings, Inc., Canam Group, Inc., Aerotek Point of Rocks, MD May 2, 2016. 92,866 LedVance, LLC, Osram Sylvania, LedVance GMBH, Manpower Inc., W&W Sons Contracting St. Marys, PA May 6, 2017. 92,866A Wortman Controls, Inc., Manpowergroup US, Inc., Penn Highlands Elk, LedVance, LLC, etc St. Marys, PA May 3, 2016 92,869 Congoleum Corporation, Plant 2 Trenton, NJ May 4, 2016. 92,881 DME Company LLC, Youngwood, Milacron Corporation, Aerotek Staffing Services Youngwood, PA May 9, 2016. 92,913 Computer Aid, Inc., TEK Consulting, NEE Consulting LTD., SB Technical Inc Allentown, PA April 25, 2016. 92,919 Ernie Green Industries, Inc., eNNOVEA, LLC Erie, PA May 10, 2016. 92,927 New Castle Industries, Inc., Nordson Xaloy, Inc., Manpower Group US New Castle, PA June 1, 2016. 92,935 Jefferson Yarns, Inc Pulaski, VA May 19, 2016. 92,961 North American Communications, Spherion Staffing, Aerotek Duncansville, PA June 20, 2016. 93,014 Pacific Coast Feather Company, Down and Feather Division of PCFC, Hollander Sleep Products, etc Des Plaines, IL July 13, 2016.

    The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path) of the Trade Act have been met.

    TA-W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 91,762 R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Staffmark, Kelly Services Portland, OR April 29, 2015. 91,830 Epsilon Data Management, LLC, ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc., Sogeti, Theorem Irvine, TX May 16, 2015. 92,199 Dell Financial Services LLC, Dell Technologies Inc Round Rock, TX September 12, 2015. 92,343 Elie Tahari, Ltd., Patternmakers, Samplemakers New York, NY October 18, 2015. 92,400 International Automotive Components (IAC), Aerotek Iowa City, IA November 5, 2015. 92,436 Cameron International Corporation, Schlumberger Ltd., Process Systems Electra, TX March 13, 2016. 92,459 Unilever United States, Inc., IT Department, Unilever NV, Monroe Staffing Service LLC Trumbull, CT December 2, 2015. 92,459A Unilever United States, Inc., IT Department, Unilever NV, Monroe Staffing Service LLC Shelton, CT December 2, 2015. 92,459B Unilever United States, Inc., IT Department, Unilever NV Englewood Cliffs, NJ December 2, 2015. 92,511 Source One Cable Technology, Inc San Jose, CA December 28, 2015. 92,545 BlueLine Rental, LLC, Vander Intermediate Holding III Corporation, Accounts Payable Group, etc Shippensburg, PA January 11, 2016. 92,583 Davita Medical Management, LLC, HealthCare Partners, LLC, DaVita, Inc., Medical Claims Processing El Segundo, CA January 26, 2016. 92,618 Bank of America, Home Affordable Program, Bank of America N.A Plano, TX January 25, 2016. 92,625 Tronc, Inc., Technology, Apex Systems, Bitwise, Infosys, iSpace, etc Chicago, IL February 6, 2016. 92,625A Tronc, Inc., Tribune Publishing, Technology, Tata Consulting Services Lewisville, TX February 6, 2016. 92,625B Tronc, Inc., Technology, Tata Consulting Services Allentown, PA February 6, 2016. 92,625C Tronc, Inc., Technology, iSpace, Tata Consulting Services, 501 North Calvert Street Baltimore, MD February 6, 2016. 92,625D Tronc, Inc., Technology, Apex Systems, iSpace, Tata Consulting Services Orlando, FL February 6, 2016. 92,625E Tronc, Inc., Technology, Tata Consulting Services Deerfield Beach, FL February 6, 2016. 92,625F Tronc, Inc., Technology, Infosys, iSpace, Tata Consulting, 202 West Broad Street Los Angeles, CA February 6, 2016. 92,625G Tronc, Inc., Technology, Tata Consulting Services Hartford, CT February 6, 2016. 92,625H Tronc, Inc., Technology, iSpace, Tata Consulting Services, 600 B. Street, Suite 1201 San Diego, CA February 6, 2016. 92,625I Tronc, Inc., Technology, iSpace, Tata Consulting Services, 350 Camino de la Reina San Diego, CA February 6, 2016. 92,626 Kaba llco Corp., Dormakaba Group, The Resource, Aerotek, Accountemps Winston-Salem, NC January 11, 2016. 92,657 The Seattle Times, Pre-Press Department, Traffic Central Group Seattle, WA February 16, 2016. 92,663 Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., ACO Project Division Bellevue, WA February 16, 2016. 92,668 Thomson Reuters, Pontoon Stamford, CT February 21, 2016. 92,683 IntelliServ, Inc., National Oilwell Varco, Inc., Grant Prideco, Inc., Elwood Staffing, etc Provo, UT February 27, 2016. 92,694 LifeScan Products LLC, Kelly Services Worksense Aguadilla, PR March 3, 2016. 92,695 Delta Products Corporation, Aerotek Staffing Hillsboro, OR March 3, 2016. 92,696 Littelfuse Inc., Traffic, Workforce Eagle Pass, TX March 3, 2016. 92,711 Amdocs Incorporated, Amdocs Limited, GSS NAM PSG Champaign, IL March 9, 2016. 92,713 Tronc, Inc., Finance Division, NIIT Technologies, Inc Fountain Valley, CA March 9, 2016. 92,719 Burleigh Point LTD, Billabong International LTD, RVCA, Quality Control, 24/7 Talent Irvine, CA March 10, 2016. 92,722 Exacq Technologies, Inc., Sensormatic Electronics, LLC, Tyco International, Johnson Controls, Inc Fishers, IN March 13, 2016. 92,723 Hexion, Inc., Forest Products Mount Jewett, PA March 13, 2016. 92,739 Micrometals Texas, Inc., Micrometals, Inc., Manpower, Inc Abilene, TX March 16, 2016. 92,740 NSi Industries LLC, Adecco, Direct Staffing Solutions Mount Vernon, NY March 16, 2016. 92,751 Epicor Software Corporation, Epicor, Inc., ZeroChaos Bensalem, PA March 21, 2016. 92,763 Shoes for Crews, LLC, Customer Service Call Center, Auxis Managed Services LLC West Palm Beach, FL March 23, 2016. 92,766 Mission Solar Energy, LLC, OCI Company Limited, Tri-Starr Personnel San Antonio, TX March 27, 2016. 92,770 St. John Knits, Inc., Knitwear, St. John Knits International, Inc Irvine, CA March 27, 2016. 92,771 Gloucester Seafood Processing, Inc., Jorzac Corp., EDA Staffing, Inc Gloucester, MA March 27, 2016. 92,784 Pall Corporation, Danaher, Food and Beverage Business Unit (F&B) Westborough, MA March 31, 2016. 92,785 Mitel, Collections, Accountemps, Prologistix Reno, NV April 3, 2016. 92,788 Staples Shared Services Center, LLC, Financial Share Services, Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., Tapfin, etc Columbia, SC April 3, 2016. 92,790 A123 Systems LLC, Adecco—USA Romulus, MI April 4, 2016. 92,790A A123 Systems LLC, Adecco—USA Livonia, MI April 4, 2016. 92,794 Diamond Materials Tech, Inc., Meyer Burger, Robert Half, Elwood Staffing Colorado Springs, CO April 5, 2016. 92,797 AF Gloenco Inc., AFGlobal Corporation Greenville, SC April 7, 2016. 92,800 Dell USA, L.P., Global Support Administration, Dell Technologies Inc Round Rock, TX April 6, 2016. 92,802 Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC, Firstsource Solutions Ltd., Information Technology, etc Louisville, KY April 6, 2016. 92,803 Lasermasters, LLC dba LMI Solutions, PHXCO, LLC, GPS Holdings, LLC, Solutions Staffing Phoenix, AZ April 5, 2016. 92,803A Lasermasters, LLC dba LMI Solutions, PHXCO, LLC, GPS Holdings, LLC, Remedy Intelligent Staffing McFarland, WI April 5, 2016. 92,804 Schneider Electric, Volt Peru, IN April 6, 2016. 92,808 USF Reddaway Inc., Corporate, YRC Worldwide Inc., Integrity Staffing Solutions, etc Tualatin, OR April 7, 2016. 92,810 Avid Technology, Inc., Global Logic, Advantage, Click to Play Media, Inc., Aaron Martin Media Burlington, MA April 6, 2016. 92,812 Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc., Sharp Electronics Corporation, Aerotek, Azad, etc Camas, WA April 6, 2016. 92,813 Storm Manufacturing Group Inc. (SMG), Machine Shop, Storm Industries Inc Torrance, CA April 10, 2016. 92,814 Rockwood Casualty Insurance Company, Argo Group International Holdings, LTD., Wipro, Secure 24, CSS Corporation Rockwood, PA April 11, 2016. 92,814A Rockwood Casualty Insurance Company, Argo Group International Holdings, LTD., Wipro, Secure 24, CSS Corporation San Antonio, TX April 11, 2016. 92,815 Land O'Lakes, Inc., IT-Master Data Management Roseville, MN April 11, 2016. 92,829 Thomson Reuters, Finance & Risk Trading, Pontoon New York, NY April 17, 2016. 92,831 Monsoon Inc Portland, OR April 19, 2016. 92,832 Finisar Corporation, Operations, Manufacturing, Purchasing, and Engineering Horsham, PA April 25, 2017. 92,844 Arrow International, Teleflex, Aerotek Asheboro, NC May 8, 2017. 92,844A The Agency, Arrow International, Teleflex Asheboro, NC April 24, 2016. 92,848 Watts Regulator Company, Orion Enterprises, Orion Enterprises, Inc., Morgan Hunter, etc Kansas City, KS April 26, 2016. 92,851 Consolidated Metco, Inc., Bryson City Plant, Amsted Industries Incorporated, Manpower, Aerotek Bryson City, NC April 13, 2016. 92,852 Essentra Components, Information Technology Department, Essentra plc, Nicholas Matteson Erie, PA April 27, 2016. 92,852A Essentra Components, Information Technology Department, Essentra plc, Nicholas Matteson Westchester, IL April 27, 2016. 92,856 Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, Randstad, Aerotek, Kforce, TEKsystems Providence, RI April 28, 2016. 92,857 TE Connectivity/Measurement Specialties, TE Connectivity Corporation, Kelly Services, Aerotek, AppleOne, etc Chatsworth, CA May 1, 2016. 92,860 Mellanox Technologies Silicon Photonics, Inc., Kolura, Inc., Mellanox Technologies, Inc., Aerotek Monterey Park, CA April 26, 2016. 92,863 General Mills Services, Inc., Information Technology (IT), Finance, and Administrative Services, etc Golden Valley, MN May 1, 2016. 92,865 Goodyear Commercial Tire &Service Centers, Corporate Office & Field Leadership, etc Fort Smith, AR May 3, 2016. 92,867 RR Donnelley, Office Tiger, Larson Brown, Bachrach Group New York, NY April 17, 2016. 92,868 Zebra Technologies Corporation, Holtsville-Zebra Enterprise Visibility & Mobility (EVM) Segment, etc Holtsville, NY May 4, 2016. 92,870 Mondi Akrosil, LLC, Consumer Packaging Division, Mondi International Holdings B.V., Iforce, etc Lancaster, OH May 4, 2016. 92,874 ASG Technologies Group, Inc Arlington, TX May 8, 2016. 92,875 Baldor Electric Company, RMMG Division, ABB Ltd., Penmac Staffing, TEC Staffing Services Fort Smith, AR May 8, 2016. 92,876 Medtronic Columbia Heights, MN May 8, 2016. 92,876A Medtronic Coon Rapids, MN May 8, 2016. 92,878 Trombetta, Trombetta Electronics Division, Trumpet Holdings, Inc Malden, MA May 2, 2016. 92,879 Beaver-Visitec International, Inc., Beaver-Visitec International Holdings, Inc., NESC Staffing Corporation, etc Waltham, MA April 28, 2016. 92,884 Medical Business Services NW, Inc Tigard, OR May 11, 2016. 92,886 Maggy London Int'l Limited, 530 7th Avenue New York, NY August 20, 2016. 92,886A Maggy London Int'l Limited, 132 West 36th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY May 10, 2016. 92,888 Conduent Business Services, Healthcare, Xerox Business Services, Aerotek, Randstad Moosic, PA May 12, 2016. 92,889 ContiTech North America, Inc., ContiTech Division, Continental AG Truman, AR May 15, 2016. 92,892 Timex Group USA, Inc., Timex Group B.V., Express Employment, FirstStaff Staffing, etc North Little Rock, AR May 15, 2016. 92,896 Altiostar Networks, Inc., Corporate Division, Blacktree Technical Group, Express Employment, etc Tewksbury, MA May 16, 2016. 92,898 Duracell Manufacturing, Duracell Manufacturing, Inc., Technical Associates, XLC Services, etc Lancaster, SC May 15, 2016. 92,900 Bank of America, Bank of America, N.A Simi Valley, CA May 17, 2016. 92,901 McCain Foods USA, Inc., Associated Staffing, Advance Services, Inc., Malace HR, etc Grand Island, NE May 18, 2016. 92,902 OECO LLC, Meggitt Sensing Systems, Meggitt PLC, Aerotek, CDI Corp., etc Milwaukie, OR May 18, 2016. 92,903 The Boeing Company, Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA), American Cybersystems Inc Tukwila, WA August 7, 2017. 92,903A The Boeing Company, Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA), Apollo Professional Solutions Inc., etc Portland, OR May 19, 2016. 92,910 ABB Inc., Human Resource Services, Pontoon Solutions Cary, NC May 22, 2016. 92,912 Dr. Leonard's Healthcare Corporation, Order Services Division, AmeriMark Holdings Lincoln, NE May 23, 2016. 92,914 Trostel, Ltd., Preferred Compounding Corporation Lake Geneva, WI May 17, 2016. 92,915 Bloomberg L.P., Global Data Division, Bloomberg Inc., Forrest Solutions Group, etc Skillman, NJ May 24, 2016. 92,916 Kelvion Inc., Kelvion, Manpower, JFC Global, Miller Brothers Staffing (MBS) York, PA May 24, 2016. 92,923 Health Care Service Corporation, Information Technology (Infrastructure) Services Chicago, IL May 15, 2016. 92,928 Dell USA, L.P., Americas Dispatch Support Center, Dell Technologies Inc Round Rock, TX May 22, 2016. 92,930 Robertshaw, Burner Systems International, Inc. Belfex, Express, Resource MFG, etc Chattanooga, TN June 2, 2016. 92,931 United Parcel Service, Columbia Collection on Delivery (COD), Spherion Staffing Services West Columbia, SC June 5, 2016. 92,933 Wolfe Tory Medical Inc., Teleflex, Inc., Aerotek, Express Employment, Medical Professionals, etc Salt Lake City, UT June 5, 2016. 92,938 Adient US, LLC, Lexington Plant, Adient PLC, Manpower, 659 Natchez Trace Drive Lexington, TN June 8, 2016. 92,938A Adient US, LLC, Lexington Plant, Adient PLC, Manpower, 450 Mig Drive Lexington, TN June 8, 2016. 92,939 SKF USA, Inc., San Diego Office, AB SKF, Target CW, PrideStaff San Diego, CA June 9, 2016. 92,941 The Prudential Insurance Company of America, ILI Technology & Business Services Division, Atlantic Partners, etc Roseland, NJ June 9, 2016. 92,942 SECO Manufacturing, Trimble, Inc., Trimble Navigation, Manpower, Clear Path Mound City, IL June 12, 2016. 92,946 Carlisle Etcetera LLC, Accounting Department, Royal Spirit Limited New York, NY June 12, 2016. 92,947 Vista Inkjets, Inc., EmployBridge, Express Staffing Employment Professionals Tucson, AZ April 3, 2016. 92,950 Health Care Service Corporation, Information Technology Infrastructure) Services Richardson, TX June 14, 2016. 92,962 Fisher & Ludlow Inc., Nucor Grating Litchfield, IL June 20, 2016. 92,968 Fiserv, Inc., Randstad Lincoln, NE June 22, 2016. 92,969 Louis Garneau USA, Inc., Production Floor Division, Louis Garneau Sports, Inc Derby, VT June 22, 2016. 92,974 Checkfreepay Corporation, Fiserv, Inc., Randstad Wallingford, CT June 26, 2016. 92,978 Global Display Solutions, Inc., GDS Holding, Dickey's Staffing, Accountemps Rockford, IL June 5, 2016. 92,979 Integrated Energy Technologies Inc., Doncasters, Inc., Express Employment Chula Vista, CA June 28, 2016. 92,980 Technicolor, Inc., Financial Shared Services, Volt Workforce Solutions, CDI Corporation, etc Ontario, CA June 28, 2016. 92,981 TomTom North America, Inc., Sourcing Operations Division Lebanon, NH June 28, 2016. 92,982 Williams Controls, Curtiss-Wright Portland, OR June 29, 2016. 92,988 Coax LLC, High Speed Interconnects LLC Tigard, OR June 30, 2016. 92,989 HSBC Technolog