Federal Register Vol. 82, No.194,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 194 (October 10, 2017)

Page Range46893-47081
FR Document

82_FR_194
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 47029 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science BoardPDF
82 FR 47075 - Buy America Waiver NotificationPDF
82 FR 47047 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 47029 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 46974 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 47078 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Time Record (Work Study Program)PDF
82 FR 46958 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 46929 - Tolfenpyrad; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency ExemptionsPDF
82 FR 46985 - Tetrachlorvinphos; Notice of Receipt of Request To Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide RegistrationsPDF
82 FR 46898 - Establishment of Restricted Area R-2603; Fort Carson, COPDF
82 FR 46926 - Tall Oil Fatty Acids; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
82 FR 46986 - Environmental Modeling Public Meeting; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 46984 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 47072 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Helicopter Association InternationalPDF
82 FR 46948 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Pequonnock River, Bridgeport, CTPDF
82 FR 46969 - Membership of the Performance Review BoardPDF
82 FR 47079 - Veterans' Research and Health Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 46988 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 46970 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 47045 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 47025 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 47029 - Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1PDF
82 FR 46970 - Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 47028 - 189th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 46997 - Re-designation of the Delivery Area for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian TownshipPDF
82 FR 47004 - Re-Designation of the Delivery Area for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, Formerly Known as Smith River RancheriaPDF
82 FR 46989 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program.PDF
82 FR 46988 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 47046 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 46991 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 46994 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 46993 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 46996 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 46963 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 46965 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission of New Shipper Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 46961 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 47026 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Silicon Integration Initiative, Inc.PDF
82 FR 46954 - Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of DirectorsPDF
82 FR 47026 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Open Mobile AlliancePDF
82 FR 47026 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: FBI eFOIA FormPDF
82 FR 46936 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota TransferPDF
82 FR 47016 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security FilingPDF
82 FR 47015 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Report of DiversionPDF
82 FR 47023 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, New MexicoPDF
82 FR 46954 - Cranberries Grown in States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York; Request for Approval of a New Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 47018 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Administrative Procedures for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Financial Assistance ProgramsPDF
82 FR 47021 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Land-Based Wind Energy GuidelinesPDF
82 FR 46982 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
82 FR 46972 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
82 FR 46978 - University of Notre Dame; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 46981 - Lamarr Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 46979 - Notice of Petition for Partial Waiver; Indiana Municipal Power Agency, Indiana Utility Regulatory CommissionPDF
82 FR 46982 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 46979 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 46973 - California Public Utilities Commission, Transmission Agency of Northern California, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, M-S-R Public Power Agency, City of Santa Clara, California, State Water Contractors, Modesto Irrigation District, Northern California Power Agency v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of ComplaintPDF
82 FR 46983 - Merchant Hydro Developers LLC; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To IntervenePDF
82 FR 46934 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna FisheriesPDF
82 FR 47070 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the U.S. Virgin IslandsPDF
82 FR 46991 - Submission for OMB Review; Architect-Engineer Qualifications (Standard Form 330)PDF
82 FR 47071 - Seventy First RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing PlenaryPDF
82 FR 47073 - Ninety Ninth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) PlenaryPDF
82 FR 47073 - Seventeenth RTCA SC-209 Plenary Session Joint With EUROCAE WG49PDF
82 FR 47072 - Thirty First RTCA SC-217 Aeronautical Databases Plenary Joint With EUROCAE WG-44PDF
82 FR 47074 - Twelfth RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics PlenaryPDF
82 FR 47070 - The Entire United States and U.S. Territories Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL)PDF
82 FR 47069 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of GeorgiaPDF
82 FR 47070 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto RicoPDF
82 FR 47071 - Notice of Public Meeting of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory BoardPDF
82 FR 46901 - Safety Zone; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Camp Lejeune, NCPDF
82 FR 46990 - Notice of Termination, 10403-First State Bank, Cranford, New JerseyPDF
82 FR 46990 - Notice of Termination; 10368-First Heritage Bank, Snohomish, WashingtonPDF
82 FR 46937 - Internet Communication Disclaimers; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
82 FR 47054 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 47024 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Federal Inspections and MonitoringPDF
82 FR 47080 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Supplemental Income Questionnaire (for Philippine Claims Only)PDF
82 FR 47081 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Exclusion of Children's IncomePDF
82 FR 47080 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Department of Veteran Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Part 813, Simplified Acquisition ProceduresPDF
82 FR 47028 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 47044 - Florida Power and Light Company; Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7PDF
82 FR 47078 - VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 47079 - Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials, Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 47072 - Fifth Drone Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 47074 - Transport Airplane and Engine Subcommittee; MeetingPDF
82 FR 47078 - Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 46950 - Periodic ReportingPDF
82 FR 47011 - Office of the Director; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 47013 - Specification for Postal Security Devices and Indicia (Postmarks); CorrectionPDF
82 FR 47015 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 47015 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 47012 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 47012 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 47015 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 47013 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 46956 - Information Collection; Urban Forest in Atlanta, GAPDF
82 FR 46957 - Information Collection: Federal and Non-Federal Financial Assistance InstrumentsPDF
82 FR 46975 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Nylon Corporation of AmericaPDF
82 FR 46974 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; York Haven Power Company, LLCPDF
82 FR 46975 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 46972 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 46980 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 47065 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers, To Add New Optional Functionality to Minimum Quantity OrdersPDF
82 FR 47047 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers, To Add New Optional Functionality to Minimum Quantity OrdersPDF
82 FR 47063 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Obsolete Text From Options Regulatory Fee RulePDF
82 FR 47064 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Obsolete Text From Options Regulatory Fee RulePDF
82 FR 47051 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Obsolete Text From Options Regulatory Fee RulePDF
82 FR 47055 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt New Corporate Governance and Related Processes Similar to Those of the Nasdaq ExchangesPDF
82 FR 46956 - Information Collection; Volunteer Application and Agreement for Natural and Cultural Resources AgenciesPDF
82 FR 47076 - Forest River, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
82 FR 47075 - Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago Passenger Cars Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
82 FR 47047 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 47047 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 47053 - EntrepreneurShares Series Trust, et al.PDF
82 FR 47020 - Foreign Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
82 FR 46900 - Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Adjunctive Cardiovascular Status Indicator; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 46960 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 46959 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Review and Discuss a Draft Report Regarding Civil Rights and Voter Participation in the StatePDF
82 FR 46961 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 46987 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 46960 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Vermont Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 46968 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
82 FR 46895 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Battle Creek, MIPDF
82 FR 46915 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; General Burning Rule RevisionsPDF
82 FR 46917 - Interim Final Determination To Defer Sanctions; California; Los Angeles-South Coast Air BasinPDF
82 FR 46951 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5PDF
82 FR 47032 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
82 FR 46919 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; North Dakota; Revisions to Air Pollution Control RulesPDF
82 FR 46921 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Prevention of Significant Deterioration UpdatesPDF
82 FR 46903 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation PlansPDF
82 FR 46897 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Evansville, INPDF
82 FR 46893 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Augusta, ARPDF
82 FR 46894 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Redmond, ORPDF
82 FR 46940 - Grid Resiliency Pricing RulePDF
82 FR 46923 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
82 FR 46938 - Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG GlidersPDF
82 FR 46958 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory Committee To Discuss Hearing Preparations for Barriers to Voting ReportPDF

Issue

82 194 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 Contents African African Development Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors, 46954 2017-21745 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cranberries Grown in States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in State of New York, 46954-46956 2017-21735 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Open Mobile Alliance, 47026 2017-21744 Silicon Integration Initiative, Inc., 47026 2017-21746 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46991-46997 2017-21750 2017-21751 2017-21752 2017-21753 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 46958 2017-21821 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Illinois Advisory Committee, 46959-46960 2017-21657 Louisiana Advisory Committee, 46958-46959 2017-21033 Michigan Advisory Committee, 46960 2017-21658 Vermont Advisory Committee, 46960-46961 2017-21654 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Camp Lejeune, NC, 46901-46903 2017-21709 PROPOSED RULES Drawbridge Operations: Pequonnock River, Bridgeport, CT, 46948-46950 2017-21773 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 46968-46969 2017-21653 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Architect-Engineer Qualifications, 46991 2017-21719 Meetings: Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 46970 2017-21761 Government-Industry Advisory Panel, 46970-46972 2017-21768 Membership of the Performance Review Board, 46969-46970 2017-21771 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Petitions, 46961 2017-21656 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, 47028 2017-21760 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Updates, 46921-46923 2017-21605 Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans, 46903-46915 2017-21604 California; Air Plan Revisions, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, 46923-46926 2017-21375 California; Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, 46917-46919 2017-21611 North Dakota; Revisions to Air Pollution Control Rules, 46919-46921 2017-21606 Utah; General Burning Rule Revisions, 46915-46917 2017-21612 Pesticide Tolerances; Emergency Exemptions: Tolfenpyrad, 46929-46934 2017-21797 Tolerance Exemptions: Tall Oil Fatty Acids, 46926-46929 2017-21787 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 Standards; Correction of Deficiency, 46951-46953 2017-21610 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46984-46985 2017-21781 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs (Renewal), 46987-46988 2017-21655 Meetings: Environmental Modeling, 46986-46987 2017-21784 Request to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations: Tetrachlorvinphos, 46985-46986 2017-21795 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46988 2017-21769 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Battle Creek, MI, 46895-46897 2017-21627 Redmond, OR, 46894-46895 2017-21506 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Evansville, IN, 46897-46898 2017-21509 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Augusta, AR, 46893-46894 2017-21507 Restricted Area; Establishments: R-2603; Fort Carson, CO, 46898-46900 2017-21794 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Stemme AG Gliders, 46938-46940 2017-21226 NOTICES Exemption Petitions; Summaries: Helicopter Association International, 47072 2017-21780 Meetings: Drone Advisory Committee, 47072 2017-21694 Ninety Ninth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Navigation Satellite System Plenary, 47073-47074 2017-21717 Seventeenth RTCA SC-209 Plenary Session Joint with EUROCAE WG49, 47073 2017-21716 Seventy First RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary, 47071-47072 2017-21718 Thirty First RTCA SC-217 Aeronautical Databases Plenary Joint with EUROCAE WG-44, 47072-47073 2017-21715 Transport Airplane and Engine Subcommittee, 47074 2017-21693 Twelfth RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary, 47074-47075 2017-21714 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46988-46989 2017-21756 Privacy Act; Matching Programs, 46989-46990 2017-21757 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: 10368—First Heritage Bank, Snohomish, WA, 46990-46991 2017-21707 10403; First State Bank; Cranford, NJ, 46990 2017-21708 Federal Election Federal Election Commission PROPOSED RULES Internet Communication Disclaimers; Reopening of Comment Period, 46937-46938 2017-21706 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule, 46940-46948 2017-21396 NOTICES Applications: Merchant Hydro Developers LLC, 46983 2017-21724 University of Notre Dame, 46978-46979 2017-21730 Combined Filings, 46972-46973, 46975-46983 2017-21675 2017-21676 2017-21677 2017-21726 2017-21727 Complaints: California Public Utilities Commission; Transmission Agency of Northern California; Sacramento Municipal Utility District; M-S-R Public Power Agency; City of Santa Clara, California; State Water Contractors; Modesto Irrigation District; Northern California Power Agency v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 46973-46974 2017-21725 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Lamarr Energy, LLC, 46981-46982 2017-21729 Nylon Corp. of America, 46975 2017-21679 York Haven Power Co., LLC, 46974-46975 2017-21678 Petitions for Waivers: Indiana Municipal Power Agency; Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 46979 2017-21728 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 46972 2017-21731 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 46974 2017-21832 Staff Attendances, 46982 2017-21732 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers, 47075 2017-21862 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Administrative Procedures for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Financial Assistance Programs, 47018-47020 2017-21734 Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, 47021-47023 2017-21733 Permit Applications: Foreign Endangered and Threatened Species, 47020-47021 2017-21660 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Adjunctive Cardiovascular Status Indicator; Correction, 46900-46901 2017-21659 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal and Non-Federal Financial Assistance Instruments, 46957-46958 2017-21680 Urban Forest in Atlanta, GA, 46956-46957 2017-21681 Volunteer Application and Agreement for Natural and Cultural Resources Agencies, 46956 2017-21667 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Architect-Engineer Qualifications, 46991 2017-21719 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Re-designation of the Delivery Areas: Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, 46997-47004 2017-21759 Tolowa Dee-ni Nation, formerly known as Smith River Rancheria, 47004-47011 2017-21758 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China, 46965-46968 2017-21748 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea, 46963-46965 2017-21749 Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 46961-46963 2017-21747 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain IoT Devices and Components Thereof (IoT, The Internet of Things (Iot)—Web Applications Displayed on a Web Browser), 47025-47026 2017-21763 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: FBI eFOIA Form, 47026-47028 2017-21740
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Plats of Survey: New Mexico, 47023-47024 2017-21736 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Architect-Engineer Qualifications, 46991 2017-21719 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47028-47029 2017-21699 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Importation Eligibility: Nonconforming Model Year 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago Passenger Cars, 47075-47076 2017-21665 Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Forest River, Inc., 47076-47078 2017-21666 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 47013-47014 2017-21682 2017-21683 Clinical Center Research Hospital Board, 47011-47012 2017-21690 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 47015 2017-21684 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 47015 2017-21688 National Institute on Aging, 47012-47013, 47015 2017-21687 2017-21685 2017-21686 Specification for Postal Security Devices and Indicia (Postmarks); Correction, 47013 2017-21689 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries, 46934-46935 2017-21723 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer, 46936 2017-21739 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47029 2017-21968 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47029 2017-21845 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions: Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, 47029-47032 2017-21762 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations; Biweekly Notice, 47032-47044 2017-21607 License Applications: Florida Power and Light Company; Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7, 47044-47045 2017-21698 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices, 47045-47046 2017-21767 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Periodic Reporting, 46950-46951 2017-21691 NOTICES New Postal Products, 47046-47047 2017-21754 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 47047 2017-21662 2017-21663 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 47047 2017-21664 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47047 2017-21853 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: EntrepreneurShares Series Trust, et al., 47053-47054 2017-21661 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47054 2017-21705 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 47047-47051 2017-21673 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 47065-47069 2017-21674 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 47064-47065 2017-21671 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 47055-47062 2017-21669 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 47051-47053 2017-21670 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 47063-47064 2017-21672 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: Georgia, 47069-47070 2017-21712 Puerto Rico, 47070-47071 2017-21711 U.S. Virgin Islands, 47070 2017-21721 Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program: Entire United States and U.S. Territories, 47070 2017-21713 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Scientific Advisory Board, 47071 2017-21710 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Inspections and Monitoring, 47024-47025 2017-21703 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing, 47016-47018 2017-21738 Report of Diversion, 47015-47016 2017-21737 U.S. Institute United States Institute of Peace NOTICES Meetings, 47078 2017-21692 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Exclusion of Children's Income, 47081 2017-21701 Department Of Veteran Affairs Acquisition Regulation Part 813, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, 47080 2017-21700 Supplemental Income Questionnaire, 47080-47081 2017-21702 Time Record (Work Study Program), 47078 2017-21824 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials, 47079 2017-21695 VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee, 47078-47079 2017-21696 Veterans' Research and Health Advisory Committee, 47079 2017-21770 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.

82 194 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9274; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-18] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Augusta, AR AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace at Augusta, AR. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new special Instrument approach procedures developed at Woodruff County Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Woodruff County Airport, Augusta, AR.

History

On July 21, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E Airspace at Woodruff County Airport, Augusta, AR (82 FR 33836) FAA-2016-9274. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Woodruff County Airport, Augusta, AR, to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW AR E5 Augusta, AR [New] Woodruff County Airport, AR (Lat. 35°16′19″ N., long. 091°16′13″ W.)

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

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on September 26, 2017. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-21507 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0390; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-11] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Redmond, OR AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR, by removing the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status, and modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates for Roberts Field in the associated Class D and E airspace areas are amended to match the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System. Also, an editorial change is made to the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and Class E airspace at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

History

On June 23, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 28603) Docket FAA-2017-0390, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to modify Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR, by removing the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status, and proposed to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates for Roberts Field in the associated Class D and E airspace areas would be amended to match the FAA's aeronautical database. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR, by shortening the segment to within 8.5 miles (from 13.5 miles) of the airport. This action also removes the part-time NOTAM language that reads “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.”

Additionally, this action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to reduce the area east (to within 9.6 miles, from 11.5 miles) and southeast (to within 13.1 miles, from 15 miles) of the airport, and expand the area southwest (to within 10.5 miles, from 7.6 miles) of the airport.

Also, this action updates the geographic coordinates for Roberts Field and replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions. Further, this action makes an editorial edit to the Class D legal description by reinstating the letters “MSL” to signify 5,600 feet mean sea level. This airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ANM OR D Redmond, OR [Amended] Roberts Field, OR (Lat. 44°15′15″ N., long. 121°09′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 5,600 feet MSL within a 5.1-mile radius of Roberts Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM OR E2 Redmond, OR [Amended] Roberts Field, OR (Lat. 44°15′15″ N., long. 121°09′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.1-mile radius of Roberts Field. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. ANM OR E4 Redmond, OR [Amended] Roberts Field, OR (Lat. 44°15′15″ N., long. 121°09′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the 122° bearing of Roberts Field extending from the 5.1-mile radius to 8.5 miles southeast of the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM OR E5 Redmond, OR [Amended] Roberts Field, OR (Lat. 44°15′15″ N., long. 121°09′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Roberts Field from the 270° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 195° bearing from the airport, and within a 10.5-mile radius of Roberts Field from the 195° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 270° bearing from the airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 085° bearing from Roberts Field extending to 9.6 miles east of the airport, and within 4 miles northeast and 3 miles southwest of the 122° bearing from Roberts Field extending to 13.1 miles southeast of the airport.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 27, 2017. B.G. Chew, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-21506 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0232; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-11] Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Battle Creek, MI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies the Class D and removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport (formerly W.K. Kellogg Field), Battle Creek, MI. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Battle Creek collocated VHF omnidirectional range and tactical air navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid, and cancellation of the VOR approaches. The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is also modified due to the redesign of the instrument landing system (ILS) approach, thereby removing reference to the BATOL navigation aid and Battle Creek ILS localizer. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport, and makes an editorial change replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E airspace areas. This action enhances the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (82 FR 20554, May 3, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0232 to modify Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at W.K. Kellogg Airport, Battle Creek, MI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined the Class E airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport is no longer required to contain any instrument procedures. Therefore, this rule removes Class E airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport. This change has no substantive impact on operators using the airspace.

Class D, Class E extension, and Class E transition area airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies the Class D and removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport (formerly W.K. Kellogg Field), Battle Creek, MI. The airport's geographic coordinates are amended in the associated Class D and Class E airspace listed in this amendment.

Also, the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport is being amended by removing the southwest segment, and the segment 7 miles northwest and 4.4 miles southeast of the Battle Creek ILS localizer northeast course extending 10.4 miles northeast of the localizer outer marker/non directional radio beacon. The northeast segment will be amended to within 2 miles each side of the 047° bearing (from 4 miles each side of the 049° bearing) from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 10 miles northeast (from 10.9 miles) of the airport, and the southeast segment will be amended to within 2 miles each side of the 126° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 7.4 miles (from 11.1 miles) southeast of the airport. Additionally, this action modifies the Class E airspace by removing reference to the BATOL navigation aid and Battle Creek ILS localizer. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

Lastly, this action makes minor editorial corrections to the amended Class D and Class E legal descriptions by removing the city listed before the airport name in the second line and replacing the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace Areas. AGL MI D Battle Creek, MI [Amended] W.K. Kellogg Airport, MI (Lat. 42°18′23″ N., long. 85°15′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,500 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. AGL MI E4 Battle Creek, MI [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL MI E5 Battle Creek, MI [Amended] W.K. Kellogg Airport, MI (Lat. 42°18′23″ N., long. 85°15′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 047° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 10 miles northeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 126° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 7.4 miles southeast of the airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on October 2, 2017. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-21627 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9540; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-27] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Evansville, IN AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, Indiana. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Evansville non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach, and it enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport. The amendment adjusting the coordinates of Evansville Regional Airport in Class C airspace is removed from this rule, and will be forthcoming in a separate rulemaking.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 15303, March 28, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2016-9540 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class C and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, IN. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication, the FAA realized that the proposed amendment to Class C airspace at Evansville Regional Airport was included in this rulemaking in error and is removed.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius (increased from a 6.8 mile radius) of Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, IN. The segment 4.4-miles wide (2.2 miles from each side of the 001° bearing from the airport) extending from the 6.8-mile radius is modified to a 4-mile wide segment extending from the 7.1-mile radius of the airport to 11.6 miles (increased from 11.2 miles) north of the airport.

The 4.4-mile wide segment (2.2 miles from each side of the 181° bearing from the airport) extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 11.3 miles south of the airport is removed.

The Pocket City VORTAC navigation aid segment is amended to within a 7.1-mile radius (from a 6.8-mile radius) of the airport to the VORTAC. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Evansville NDB and cancellation of the NDB approaches, and enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

The amendment of Class C airspace at Evansville Regional Airport, included in this rule in error, is removed and will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL IN E5 Evansville, IN [Amended] Evansville Regional Airport, IN (Lat. 38°02′27″ N., long. 87°31′43″ W.) Pocket City VORTAC (Lat. 37°55′42″ N., long. 87°45′45″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Evansville Regional Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 001° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.1-mile radius to 11.6 miles north of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the Pocket City VORTAC 060° radial extending from the 7.1-mile radius to the VORTAC.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 29, 2017. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-21509 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8927; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-24] Establishment of Restricted Area R-2603; Fort Carson, CO AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes restricted area R-2603 within the existing Fort Carson, CO, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), near Trinidad, CO. The U.S. Army requires additional restricted airspace because the restricted area ranges at Fort Carson are not large enough to meet all training requirements. R-2603 will provide increased ground-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-air battle space to increase training capacity and relieve training congestion at Fort Carson.

DATES:

Effective date: 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for this Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes the restricted area airspace at Fort Carson, CO, to accommodate essential Army training requirements and ensure the safety of aircraft otherwise permitted to overfly the location established for Army training.

History

The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 62847, September 13, 2016), Docket No. FAA-2016-8927, to establish restricted area R-2603 to support hazardous training activities conducted within the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), a military training site for Fort Carson.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Two comments were received, one from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and one supporting the establishment of the airspace to support military training.

Discussion of Comments

In their response to the NPRM, AOPA raised several substantive issues. AOPA contended the proposed airspace design would have a negative impact on general aviation aircraft highlighting four main areas of concern: Impacts to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft; impacts to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft; charting the restricted area; and times of use. Having considered the issues provided by AOPA, the FAA offers the following responses.

Impacts to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Aircraft

AOPA is concerned with two airways (V-81 and V-169) being effected by the establishment of R-2603. The two airways are within the restricted area boundary from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL. AOPA stated general aviation aircraft must routinely operate IFR at lower altitudes to stay out of icing and due to performance limitations and requiring an aircraft to fly several thousand more feet than is currently required, staying above R-2603's ceiling, could impact general aviation's ability to transit these airways when the restricted area is active. Additionally, AOPA is concerned with feeder route for the Perry Stokes Airport (TAD) RNAV (GPS) RWY 21 instrument approach.

The FAA recognizes the impact to general aviation aircraft and has modified the proposal to minimize the impact to allow complete access to V-169. Additionally, should aircraft encounter icing conditions that would require them to descend to altitudes encompassed by the proposed restricted area, Denver ARTCC would coordinate with the Using Agency and those altitudes would be released.

The FAA recognizes the RNAV (GPS) RWY 21 instrument approach into TAD airport from BLOOM initial approach fix would be unusable when the restricted area is activated. However, RADIO initial approach fix is unencumbered by the restricted area less than 10 NMs away. An aircraft can initiate the approach from this fix or be vectored to intercept the radial inbound from RADIO with minimal impact to general aviation aircraft.

Impacts to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Aircraft

AOPA stated pilots flying under VFR routinely follow prominent railroads and highways to get to their destination. US Route 350 and a parallel railroad proceed from TAD to La Junta Municipal Airport (LHX). Following this route would keep a pilot clear of the restricted area; however, the western boundary point is uncomfortably close for many pilots to utilize this route without proceeding unnecessarily north of the road and tracks.

The FAA has determined that only the most northwest point of the proposed restricted area is close to US Route 350. The closest point for this momentary instance is .12 NM from US 350 and .20 NM from the railroad tracks. VFR aircraft flying over either of these reference points would be clear of the proposed restricted area's closest point. Beyond this point, the distance from the proposed restricted area increases rapidly in both directions. Aircraft utilizing these ground reference points would have a clear boundary identifying they are clear of the restricted area. As long as the aircraft remain over the highway or train tracks, the restricted airspace will not be violated.

Charting of the Restricted Area

AOPA requested the activation of the new restricted area should occur concurrently or after the charting of the airspace on the Denver and Wichita Sectional Charts. Additionally, the FAA should make the effective date of restricted area airspace coincide with the sectional chart cycle so that pilots have the latest information and a graphical depiction of the change. Lastly, the instrument approach procedures to airports in proximity to R-2603 should be updated to graphically depict the new restricted area to increase situational awareness for instrument pilots. Similar to the Pinon Canyon Military Operations Area (MOA) being charted on the procedures into LHX, the restricted area and MOA should be added to TAD's approach and departure procedures.

The FAA concurs with AOPA and will make the new restricted area effective in accordance with guidance to chart on a 56-day cycle, which is December 7, 2017. However, the FAA has mandated to the proponent that it will not be utilized until the Wichita and Denver VFR sectionals are updated January 4, 2018. Lastly, the FAA will ensure the approach and departure procedures are updated.

Times of Use

AOPA stated, as part of the Colorado Airspace Initiative, the Pinon Canyon MOA (within which R-2306 will be located) had its boundaries modified in December 1999. The airspace circular for the modification (Air Traffic Division Letter to Airmen No. 98-03; Study No. 98-ANM-001-NR) stated the MOA “would not be scheduled for use between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. local.” The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) states Pinon Canyon MOA's utilization is “low” and that in 2012 had only eight days of activation. AOPA is concerned the proponent's intention may be to activate the existing MOA whenever the restricted area is in use. This issue is not addressed in the FEIS or in the NPRM. The NPRM for the restricted area states, “the area would be required to support approximately five training cycles per year with the longest duration of each cycle being approximately four to five weeks,” AOPA believes the previous statements made in the Letter to Airmen to limit utilization of the MOA may not be honored. AOPA commented that the proponent should continue the overnight embargo on the MOA's utilization and should only activate the MOA when it is explicitly needed to support operations. According to the comment, activating the MOA continuously for five weeks would not be responsible management of the airspace and would have a considerable impact on civil aviation in the area.

The FAA has changed the times of use of Pinon Canyon MOA to “Intermittent by NOTAM 0700 to 2200, daily.” This change ensures the December 1999 amendment is followed as stated in the circular. Additionally, the restricted area time of designation has been amended to “By NOTAM 24 Hours in Advance.”

Differences From the NPRM

Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, it was requested by the FAA charting team to change the order of the lat./long. coordinates to a clockwise direction vice a counter clockwise direction for ease of charting. Additionally, in response to a comment from AOPA, the FAA identified a geographic lat./long. coordinate which was relocated to ensure ample separation from airway V-169. The following restricted area update is incorporated in this action.

The geographic lat./long. coordinates are reversed for a clockwise listing of lat./long. coordinates. Additionally, the geographic lat./long. coordinate for the point located in the northeast corner of R-2603 has been relocated, so as to not impact use of the airway.

The Rule

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to establish a new restricted area R-2603 at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, near Trinidad, CO. The FAA is also incorporating the restricted area updates noted in the Differences from the NPRM section. The FAA is taking this action to ensure realistic Army training which provides increased ground-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-air battle space to increase training capacity and relieve training congestion at Fort Carson. The changes from what was proposed in the NPRM are as follows:

R-2603: The geographic coordinate proposed as “lat. 37°38′33″ N., long. 103°35′11″ W.” in the boundaries description is deleted and replaced by a point identified as “lat. 37°38′28″ N., long. 103°42′40″ W.” The legal description of R-2603 was changed from a counter clockwise direction to a clockwise direction.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action of establishing restricted area R-2603 within the existing Fort Carson, CO, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), near Trinidad, CO, qualifies for FAA adoption in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraphs 8-2 and 9-2, Adoption of Other Agencies' National Environmental Policy Act Documents, and Written Re-evaluations, and 7400.2L, paragraph 32-2-3. The purpose of creating and utilizing the Restricted Area (RA) is to allow for increased ground-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-air battle space to increase training capacity and relieve training congestion at Fort Carson. The FAA, after conducting an independent review and evaluation of the United States Army's Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site Training and Operations (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for Restricted Area R-2603 at Fort Carson, CO, has determined that the Army's EIS and its supporting documentation adequately assesses and discloses the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action including evaluation of the establishment of airspace for restricted airspace area R-2603. In March 2013, the Army Environmental Command and Fort Carson released the EIS regarding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) Training and Operations located in Colorado. On May 1, 2015, the Army issued their ROD. The Army prepared its EIS and ROD in compliance with NEPA and Army-specific environmental regulations (32 CFR part 651).

Based on the evaluation for potential environmental impact in the Army's EIS, the FAA, as the Cooperating Agency for the Army's proposed action, concluded that adoption of the Army's EIS evaluating the proposed establishment of R-2603 is authorized in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, Adoption. Accordingly, FAA adopts the Army's EIS and takes full responsibility for the scope and content that address the FAA's airspace establishment action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

§ 73.26 [Amended]
2. Section 73.26 is amended as follows: R-2603 Fort Carson, CO [New]

Boundaries: Beginning lat. 37°22′30″ N., long. 104°04′47″ W.; to lat. 37°32′27″ N., long. 104°06′32″ W.; to lat. 37°32′27″ N., long. 104°02′15″ W.; to lat. 37°33′21″ N., long. 103°57′55″ W.; to lat. 37°35′59″ N., long. 103°57′50″ W.; to lat. 37°35′57″ N., long. 103°54′40″ W.; to lat. 37°38′10″ N., long. 103°48′47″ W.; to lat. 37°38′32″ N., long. 103°48′43″ W.; to lat. 37°38′28″ N., long. 103°42′40″ W.; to lat. 37°32′46″ N., long. 103°42′46″ W.; to lat. 37°21′10″ N., long. 103°54′41″ W.; to lat. 37°21′15″ N., long. 104°02′35″ W.; thence to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes: Surface to but not including 10,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL).

Time of designation: By NOTAM 24 hours in advance.

Controlling agency: FAA, Denver ARTCC.

Using agency: Commander, U.S. Army, Fort Carson, CO.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 3, 2017. Scott M. Rosenbloom, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2017-21794 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 870 [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1620] Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Adjunctive Cardiovascular Status Indicator; Correction AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final order; correction.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final order entitled “Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Adjunctive Cardiovascular Status Indicator” that appeared in the Federal Register of July 28, 2017. The final order was published with an incorrect statement in the preamble about whether FDA planned to exempt the device from premarket notification requirements. This document corrects that error.

DATES:

Effective October 10, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nathalie Yarkony, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1254, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Federal Register of July 28, 2017 (82 FR 35065), FDA published the final order “Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Adjunctive Cardiovascular Status Indicator.” The final order published with an incorrect statement in the preamble about whether FDA planned to exempt the device from premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360(k)).

Correction

In the Federal Register of July 28, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-15901, the following correction is made:

On page 35066, at the bottom of the page below table 1, beginning in the first column, the third paragraph is corrected as follows:

“Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the adjunctive cardiovascular status indicator they intend to market.”

Dated: October 2, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-21659 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0792] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Camp Lejeune, NC AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in support of military training exercises. This temporary safety zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic from a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway between Mile Hammock Bay and Onslow Beach Swing Bridge during military training operations. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to protect mariners, vessels, and training exercise participants from the hazards associated with military training operations. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) North Carolina or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from October 10, 2017 through October 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0792 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Matthew Tyson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC; telephone: 910-772-2221, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard was notified of the final dates needed for this rule on August 17, 2017. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay this action. Waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guards' ability to protect the public and participants from the dangers associated with the military exercises scheduled from October 10 through October 30, 2017.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Immediate implementation is required to protect the public and participants from the dangers associated with the military training exercises.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP North Carolina has determined that potential hazards associated with the military exercises scheduled from October 10 through October 30, 2017, is a safety concern for mariners and participants. The military training exercises involve building temporary bridges, crossing with amphibious vehicles, and other military operations on the ICW. These military training activities will block the waterway in a manner that restricts all vessel navigation and movement within this segment of the ICW. This rule is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential hazards associated with the military training exercises.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The safety zone will be enforced on the following dates and times in October 2017:

Date Time 10th-12th 8 a.m. through 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. through 4 p.m. 13th 9 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. through 4 p.m. 18th 8 a.m. through 12 p.m. 24th 8 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. through 4 p.m. 25th-26th 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. through 5 p.m. 27th-28th 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. 29th-30th 7 a.m. through 11 a.m.

The safety zone will include all navigable waters of the ICW from Mile Hammock Bay, approximate position 34°32′46″ N., 77°19′17″ W., to Onslow Beach Swing Bridge approximate position 34°34′25″ N., 77°16′14″ W. (NAD 1983), an approximately four mile portion of the ICW. The duration of this zone is intended to protect mariners from the hazards associated with military training operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port North Carolina or a designated representative. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be allowed to enter or transit a portion of the ICW for up to 10 hours on 12 separate days. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone. This portion of the ICW has been determined to be a low traffic area. Vessels needing to transit the area during these times can safely transit offshore using New River Inlet to the south and Browns Inlet to the north. This rule does not allow vessels to request permission to enter the safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

While the precise number of small entities impacted is unknown, the ICW has a low number of vessels transiting the area planned for the safety zone during the enforcement period. Although some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting for up to 10 hours on 12 separate days that would prohibit entry into an approximately four mile portion of the ICW for military training exercises. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T05-0792 to read as follows:
§ 165.T05-0792 Safety Zone, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Camp Lejeune, NC.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, from approximate position 34°32′46″ N., 77°19′17″ W. to 34°34′25″ N., 77°16′14″ W. (NAD 1983) at Camp Lejeune, NC.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) for the enforcement of the safety zone. “Captain of the Port” means the Commander, Sector North Carolina. “Participants” means persons and vessels involved in support of a military exercise.

(c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing safety zones in § 165.23 apply to the area described in paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, North Carolina or designated representative(s).

(3) All vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes effective must depart the zone immediately.

(4) The Captain of the Port, North Carolina can be reached through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina at telephone number 910-343-3882.

(5) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

(e) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced on the following dates and times in October 2017:

Date Time 10th-12th 8 a.m. through 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. through 4 p.m. 13th 9 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. through 4 p.m. 18th 8 a.m. through 12 p.m. 24th 8 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. through 4 p.m. 25th-26th 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. through 5 p.m. 27th-28th 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. 29th-30th 7 a.m. through 11 a.m.
Dated: October 3, 2017. Bion B. Stewart, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2017-21709 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0092, FRL-9968-97-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a source-specific revision to the Arizona state implementation plan (SIP) that provides an alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the Coronado Generating Station (“Coronado”), owned and operated by the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP). The EPA has determined that the BART alternative for Coronado would provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART, based on the criteria established in the EPA's Regional Haze Rule. In conjunction with this approval, we are withdrawing those portions of the federal implementation plan (FIP) that address BART for Coronado. We are also codifying the removal of those portions of the Arizona SIP that have either been superseded by this approval of the SIP revision for Coronado or by previously-approved revisions to the Arizona SIP.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0092 for this action. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) 999-7880 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Table of Contents I. General Information II. Proposed Action III. Public Comments and EPA Responses IV. Final Action V. Environmental Justice Considerations VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

• The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.

• The word Coronado refers to the Coronado Generating Station.

• The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit Technology.

• The initials BOD mean or refer to boiler operating day.

• The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I Federal area.1

1 Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to mandatory Class I Federal areas. When we use the term “Class I area” in this action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal area.”

• The initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act.

• The words EPA, we, us, or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

• The initials FIP mean or refer to federal implementation plan.

• The initials lb/MMBtu mean or refer to pounds per million British thermal units.

• The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

• The initials NO X mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.

• The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter, which is inclusive of PM10 (particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers) and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers).

• The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic reduction.

• The initials SIP mean or refer to state implementation plan.

• The initials SO 2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

• The initials SRP mean or refer to the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District.

• The initials tpy mean or refer to tons per year.

II. Proposed Action

On April 27, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve a revision to the Arizona Regional Haze SIP for Coronado (“Coronado SIP Revision”) 2 that provides an alternative to BART for Coronado (“Coronado BART Alternative”).3 The Coronado SIP Revision and BART Alternative consist of an interim operating strategy (“Interim Strategy”) that will take effect on December 5, 2017, and a final operating strategy (“Final Strategy”) that will take effect no later than December 31, 2025. The Coronado BART Alternative was submitted pursuant to provisions of the Regional Haze Rule that allows states to adopt alternative measures in lieu of source-specific BART controls if they can demonstrate that the alternative measures provide greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART.4

2 As noted in our proposal, the Coronado SIP Revision includes both the original version of the revision (dated July 19, 2016) that was proposed by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for public comment, and an addendum (“Addendum” dated November 10, 2016), in addition to various supporting materials. The Addendum documents changes to the Coronado BART Alternative since ADEQ's July 19, 2016 proposal. Unless otherwise specified, references in this document to the Coronado SIP Revision include both of these documents, as well as the other materials included in ADEQ's submittal.

3 82 FR 19333. Please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking for background information concerning the CAA, the Regional Haze Rule, and the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP, and a detailed analysis of the Coronado BART Alternative.

4 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).

The Interim Strategy includes three different operating options, each of which requires a period of seasonal curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for Unit 1. Each year, SRP must select and implement one of the three options based on the nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions performance of Unit 1 and the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions performance of Units 1 and 2 in that year. In addition, under each option, the facility must comply with an annual SO2 emissions cap of 1,970 tons per year (tpy) from Unit 1 and Unit 2 effective beginning in 2018. The Final Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision requires the installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on Unit 1 (“SCR Option”) or the permanent cessation of operation of Unit 1 (“Shutdown Option”) no later than December 31, 2025. SRP is required to notify ADEQ and the EPA of its selection of either the SCR Option or the Shutdown Option by December 31, 2022. The Final Strategy includes two additional features: An SO2 emission limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu, calculated on a 30-boiler operating day (BOD) rolling average, which applies to Unit 2 (as well as Unit 1 if it continues operating), and an annual SO2 emissions cap of either 1,970 tpy from Unit 1 and Unit 2, if both units continue operating, or 1,080 tpy if Unit 1 shuts down. ADEQ incorporated the revised emission limits, as well as associated compliance deadlines and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, as a permit revision to Coronado's existing Operating Permit, which was submitted as part of the Coronado SIP Revision (“Coronado Permit Revision”).5

5 Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit No. 64169 as amended by Significant Revision to operating permit No. 63088 (December 14, 2016). The provisions implementing the Coronado BART Alternative are incorporated in Attachment E to the permit. Attachment E will become effective under State law on the date of the EPA's final action to approve Attachment E into the Arizona SIP and rescind the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Coronado. Id. Attachment E, section I.A.

We proposed to approve the Coronado SIP Revision because in our assessment it complied with the relevant requirements of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. In particular, we proposed to find that the Coronado BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at Coronado.6 Because this approval would fill the gap in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by the EPA's prior partial disapproval with respect to Coronado, we also proposed to withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Coronado. Finally, we proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 52 to codify the removal of those portions of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP that have either been superseded by previously-approved revisions to the Arizona SIP or would be superseded by final approval of the Coronado SIP Revision.

6 For purposes of our evaluation, we consider BART for Coronado to consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ's BART determinations for PM10 and SO2, which were approved into the applicable SIP, and (2) the EPA's BART determination for NOX in the 2016 BART Reconsideration (collectively the “Coronado BART Control Strategy”). See 82 FR 19337.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

The EPA's proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period. During this period, we received comment letters from Earthjustice (on behalf of the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association),7 Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),8 SRP,9 and two anonymous commenters. Summaries of significant comments and our responses are provided below.

7 Letter from Michael Hiatt, Earthjustice, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (“Earthjustice comment letter”).

8 Letter from Bruce Polkowsky and Graham McCahan, EDF, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (“EDF comment letter”).

9 Letter from Kelly Barr, SRP, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (“SRP comment letter”).

Comments From Non-Governmental Organizations

Comment: Earthjustice argued that the EPA should not approve the Coronado BART Alternative because ADEQ and SRP's rationale for replacing the original BART determination with the BART Alternative is now invalid. Citing several administrative law cases, the commenter stated that the EPA must provide a valid rationale for issuing any regulation, including an approval or disapproval of a SIP, given that standard Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements apply to such actions. The commenter noted that both ADEQ and SRP had indicated that the purpose of the Coronado BART Alternative was to delay Unit 1's BART obligations until SRP knew whether it would choose to retire Coronado to comply with the Clean Power Plan (CPP). In particular, the commenter cited statements in the Coronado SIP Revision that referred to regulatory uncertainty related to the CPP. The commenter noted that the “EPA and the new administration have taken multiple actions to indefinitely suspend and review the [CPP]” and asserted that these actions undercut ADEQ's rationale for replacing the original BART determination with the Coronado BART Alternative.

Earthjustice acknowledged that the EPA did not discuss the CPP in our proposal. However, citing Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016), in which the Ninth Circuit upheld the EPA's disapproval of ADEQ's original NOX BART determination for Coronado, the commenter asserted that, “if ADEQ's plan is based on an invalid rationale it is unreasonable, and EPA's approval of the plan would also necessarily be unreasonable and arbitrary.” The commenter argued that the “EPA cannot cure this fatal flaw with the BART alternative by attempting to come up with other rationales for the alternative in response to these comments.”

Earthjustice further asserted that ADEQ should “propose a new BART revision that is based on a valid rationale.” The commenter also noted that SRP could comply with the existing BART determination by shutting down Unit 1 and asserted that “this result would be consistent with other recent decisions across Arizona to shut down coal plants or switch them to gas.”

Response: We agree with the commenter that APA requirements generally apply to the EPA's approval or disapproval of a SIP revision and that we must provide a reasoned justification for such actions.10 We also agree with the commenter that both ADEQ and SRP previously indicated that the Coronado BART Alternative was developed to align SRP's compliance obligations under the CPP and the Regional Haze Rule.

10 We note that the EPA is issuing this final rule under section 307(d) of the CAA, which provides that that: “[t]he provisions of section 553 through 557 . . . of [the APA] shall not, except as expressly provided in this section, apply to actions to which [CAA section 307(d)] applies.” 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1). Nonetheless, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(9)(A), the same arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review applies to an action under 307(d) as to an action subject to the APA.

In reviewing a SIP submittal, however, the EPA's role is to evaluate whether the submittal meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and the EPA's regulations. If these requirements are met, the EPA must approve the submittal.11 As noted by the commenter, “the EPA does not usurp a state's authority but ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised.” 12 However, the state's underlying motivation in submitting the SIP revision, which the commenter refers to as the state's “rationale” is not one of the elements that the EPA is required to evaluate under the CAA. Therefore, in acting on the Coronado SIP Revision, we have not considered the state's motivation in developing the SIP revision. Rather, as described in our proposal and elsewhere in this document, we have evaluated the Coronado SIP Revision in relation to the relevant requirements of the CAA and the EPA's regulations, and we have determined that it meets all of these requirements. In particular, the Coronado SIP Revision includes detailed and technically sound analyses supporting the State's determination that the Coronado BART Alternative would provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART. In contrast to the flawed analyses underlying ADEQ's original NOX BART determination for Coronado, which we disapproved, the analyses supporting the Coronado BART Alternative were both “reasoned [and] moored to the [Act]'s provisions,” 13 for the reasons explained in our proposal and elsewhere in this document. Therefore, the commenter's reliance on the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Arizona v. EPA, which upheld that prior disapproval, is misplaced.

11See CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) (“[T]he) Administrator shall approve such submittal as a whole if it meets all of the applicable requirements of [the CAA].” (emphasis added)).

12 82 FR 15139, 15142 (March 27, 2017).

13Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013)).

Furthermore, the State's analyses supporting its determination of greater reasonable progress do not rely on the requirements of the CPP or any uncertainty related to those requirements. While the State included a discussion of the CPP in its proposed SIP revision to explain the proposed compliance schedule for the Coronado BART Alternative,14 the Addendum, which reflects the final requirements of the Coronado SIP Revision, includes a different compliance schedule and no mention of the CPP.

14See Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), at 2-3.

Finally, while the commenter is correct that SRP could choose to comply with the existing BART determination for Coronado Unit 1 by simply shutting down that unit, this fact has no bearing on the approvability of the Coronado SIP Revision. Likewise, the fact that the owners of units of other coal plants in Arizona have chosen to shut down units or switch them to natural gas is not pertinent to the current action.15

15 We also note that, contrary to the commenters' suggestion, none of the cited examples involve a shutdown or switch to gas to comply with the original BART determination for the facility. The switch to natural gas at Apache Generating Station Unit 2 is part of a BART alternative that replaced the original BART determinations for that facility. See 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2017). The closure of Cholla Generating Station Unit 2 and cessation of coal burning at Units 3 and 4 are part of a BART reassessment that replaced the original BART determinations for that facility. See 82 FR 15139 (March 27, 2017). Finally, as noted by the commenter, the possible closure of Navajo Generating Station is due to economic factors. See, e.g., Ryan Randazzo, Utilities vote to close Navajo coal plant at end of 2019, Arizona Republic (February 13, 2017).

Comment: EDF and Earthjustice both objected to the EPA's and ADEQ's reliance on the two-prong modeling test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to demonstrate that the Interim Strategy would achieve greater reasonable progress than the Coronado BART Alternative. The commenters noted that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) outlines two different tests for evaluating whether a BART alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. In particular, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides that:

If the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days. The modeling would demonstrate “greater reasonable progress” if both of the following two criteria are met:

(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and

(ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.16

16 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).

The commenters noted that the EPA has consistently interpreted the term “distribution” under the first test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) (the “emissions-reduction test”) to refer to geographic distribution. Citing to prior EPA rulemaking actions, EDF stated that the “EPA has traditionally applied the modeling test only in cases where `the distribution of emissions is significantly different' between BART and the BART alternative.” Earthjustice further asserted that, “[w]hen deciding which `Better than BART' test applies, the determinative factor is whether the distribution of emissions between the alternative and BART is substantially different.” The commenters also noted that, in our proposal to approve the Coronado BART Alternative, we again interpreted “distribution” to refer to geographic distribution when we proposed to determine that the Final Strategy would not result in a substantially different distribution of emissions from BART. However, the commenters suggested that, by proposing to approve ADEQ's use of the two-prong modeling test, rather than the emissions-reduction test, to evaluate the Interim Strategy, the EPA was improperly applying a different interpretation of “distribution” to the Interim Strategy.

Earthjustice further asserted that the Coronado BART Alternative “fails” the emissions-reduction test, which it characterized as the “correct” test to apply in this instance. Citing the difference in total NOX, SO2, and PM10 emissions for each of the Interim Strategy scenarios compared with BART, Earthjustice stated that each of the Interim Strategy options “will result in greater overall air pollution than BART for eight years after the December 2017 BART compliance deadline.” For this reason, the commenter concluded that the Coronado BART Alternative is not “Better than BART” and that the EPA should disapprove it.

Response: We agree with the commenters that the EPA's long-standing interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) is that, if the geographic distribution of emissions is the same under the BART alternative and BART, then the emissions distribution is not substantially different.17 However, as explained further below, we do not agree with the commenters that the distribution of emissions is a determinative factor, such that if the distribution of emissions under the BART alternative is not substantially different than under BART, then the alternative must be evaluated using the emissions-reduction test. We also do not agree that the EPA has previously interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to include such a requirement. Accordingly, contrary to the commenters' assertions, we have not departed from our long-standing interpretation in evaluating the Coronado SIP Revision.

17 As noted by the conservation organizations, the Ninth Circuit recently upheld this interpretation as reasonable. Yazzie v. EPA, 851 F.3d 960, 973 (9th Cir. 2017).

As an initial matter, we note that under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), a SIP revision establishing a BART alternative must include a determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. Thus, a state (or the EPA in promulgating a FIP) always has the option to make a “clear weight of evidence” demonstration rather than choosing either of the two options under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).18

18See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919, 935-37 (10th Cir. 2014) (recognizing that a state may choose to make a demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or under a weight-of-evidence approach).

If a state does elect to make a demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), the first test (the emissions-reductions test) provides the option to make a demonstration without the need for dispersion modeling when two conditions are satisfied: (1) “the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART” and (2) “the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions.” 19 If the first condition is not satisfied (and the state has opted to make a demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) rather than a weight-of-evidence demonstration), then 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides that the state must make a demonstration under the two-prong modeling test.20 By contrast, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) does not indicate that a state must apply the emissions-reduction test whenever the first condition of the emissions-reduction test is satisfied. Thus, a state may choose to apply the two-prong modeling test even if it determines that the first condition of the emissions-reductions test is satisfied.

19 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).

20Id. (“If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the State must conduct dispersion modeling” (emphasis added)).

None of the examples of prior EPA actions cited by the commenters indicate that the EPA has previously interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to require use of the emissions-reduction test whenever the first condition of that test is satisfied. Rather, the examples demonstrate that states and the EPA have generally applied the emissions-reduction test where both conditions of that test were clearly satisfied.21 However, in other instances, states and the EPA have made a weight-of-evidence demonstration when the first condition of the emissions-reduction test was satisfied, but it was not clear whether the second condition was satisfied. For example, in 2015 we approved a weight-of-evidence demonstration submitted by ADEQ for a BART alternative at the Apache Generating Station (“Apache BART Alternative”).22 In that case, all of the emissions were from a single facility, so the first condition of the emissions-reduction test was satisfied. However, as with the Coronado BART Alternative, the Apache BART Alternative was expected to result in greater NOX emissions but lower emissions of SO2 and PM10 compared with BART.23 We found that, “[i]n this situation, where BART and the BART Alternative result in reduced emissions of one pollutant but increased emissions of another, it is not appropriate to use the `greater emissions reductions' test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).” 24 Similarly, when evaluating a BART alternative for the Tesoro Refinery in Anacortes, Washington, we determined that, even though all of the emissions were from a single facility, modeling was needed “to assess whether the visibility improvement from the BART Alternative's SO2 emission reductions would be greater than the visibility improvement from the BART NOX reductions.” 25 Likewise, when evaluating a proposed BART alternative for the Four Corners Power Plant, the EPA considered the weight of evidence, including visibility modeling, even though all emissions were from a single facility.26

21 This general trend is unsurprising, given that the emissions-reduction test demands less time and effort as it does not require modeling.

22 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).

23Id. at 19221.

24 80 FR 19221.

25 78 FR 79344, 79355 (December 30, 2013).

26See 76 FR 10530, 10534 (February 25, 2011) (“EPA is proposing to find, based on the weight of evidence, that [the proposed alternative] will result in greater reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal under section 169A(b)(2) than EPA's October 19, 2010 BART proposal” and 10537 (discussing modeling results, even though the alternative could be deemed to result in greater reasonable progress based on the emissions-reduction test).

In evaluating the Coronado BART Alternative, we have followed our long-standing interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) that, if the geographic distribution of emissions is the same under the BART alternative and BART, then the emissions distribution is not substantially different. With regard to the Final Strategy, we found that the distribution of emissions would not be substantially different than under BART because all emissions under both scenarios were from Coronado. Furthermore, under the Final Strategy, emissions of each pollutant would be lower than or equal to BART, and the collective emissions from the facility would be lower than BART.27 This allowed us to use the emissions-reduction test to confirm that the Final Strategy would ensure greater reasonable progress than BART.

27 As explained in our proposal, while the Final Strategy by itself would not meet the requirements for a BART alternative, we considered whether the Final Strategy would provide for ongoing visibility improvement, as compared with BART, by evaluating whether the Final Strategy meets both conditions of the emissions-reduction test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). 82 FR 19342.

In our proposal, we did not evaluate the Interim Strategy under the emissions-reduction test because ADEQ did not make a demonstration under this test. Therefore, we had no cause to consider whether the two conditions of that test were satisfied. Nonetheless, in response to the commenters' concerns, we wish to clarify that the same interpretation of “distribution of emissions” would apply to the Interim Strategy. Because all of the emissions under the Interim Strategy and BART are from Coronado, the distribution of emissions would not be substantially different under the two scenarios, so the first condition of the test is satisfied. Regarding the second condition of the emissions-reduction test, ADEQ found that the Interim Strategy would result in greater NOX emissions, but lower emissions of SO2 and PM10 compared with BART.28 Contrary to Earthjustice's suggestion, ADEQ did not determine that the Interim Strategy “fails” the emissions-reduction test. Rather, ADEQ found that the Interim Strategy would not necessarily achieve greater emissions reductions than BART.29 Furthermore, while the commenters point to the difference in total NOX, SO2, and PM10 emissions for each of the Interim Strategy scenarios compared with BART, we do not consider this comparison to be useful. As we explained in evaluating a proposed BART alternative submitted by Utah:

28 82 FR 19338.

29 Coronado SIP Revision, Addendum page 4.

We have not considered a total emissions profile that combines emissions of multiple pollutants to determine whether BART or the alternative is “better,” except where every visibility impairing pollutant is reduced by a greater amount under the BART alternative. A comparison of mass emissions from multiple pollutants (such as NOX and SO2) is not generally informative, particularly in assessing whether the alternative approach provides for greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility. Instead, when emissions of one or more pollutants increases under an alternative, EPA has given the most weight to the visibility impacts based on air quality modeling and used modeling to determine whether or not a BART Alternative measure that relies on interpollutant trading results in greater reasonable progress.30

30 81 FR 2004, 2028 (January 14, 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Accordingly, we do not agree with the commenters that the Coronado BART Alternative “fails” the emissions-reduction test. Rather, we find that the emissions-reduction test is not the appropriate test to evaluate the Interim Strategy of the Coronado BART Alternative, and it was appropriate and reasonable for the State to apply the two-prong modeling test to evaluate the Interim Strategy.

Comment: Earthjustice argued that the Coronado BART Alternative violates CAA section 110(l)'s anti-backsliding requirement because it weakens the existing BART determination for Coronado. Quoting CAA section 110(l) and citing several court cases interpreting that provision, the commenter stated that section 110(l) “prohibits plan revisions that would interfere with an existing BART determination” and that the “EPA's common sense interpretation of section 110(l) is that it prevents plan revisions that backslide or weaken an existing Clean Air Act requirement by increasing overall air pollution or causing worse air quality.” The commenter asserted that the Coronado BART Alternative weakens the existing BART determination for Coronado because it would result in increased air pollution and cause worse visibility impairment at multiple Class I areas in the years 2018 through 2025 and therefore violates section 110(l).

The commenter further argued that the EPA improperly based our 110(l) analysis on our determination that the Coronado BART Alternative would result in greater reasonable progress than BART. The commenter re-asserted its claim that the Coronado BART Alternative is not “Better than BART” because it “fails” the emissions-reduction test. Earthjustice also argued that, “[b]ecause the purposes of a BART alternative and section 110(l) are distinct and a BART alternative may perform worse than BART in some respects, it is unreasonable to use the `Better than BART' test as the sole criterion for whether an alternative complies with section 110(l).”

Earthjustice further noted that ADEQ was not choosing between BART and a BART alternative for Coronado in the first instance, but was instead replacing an existing BART determination that had been fully litigated and in place for four and a half years. They argued that, under these circumstances, section 110(l) requires the EPA to independently determine whether the alternative weakens the existing BART determination, and the EPA cannot rely on the “Better than BART” test as the sole criterion for whether an alternative complies with section 110(l).

Finally, the commenter made several points related to the EPA's approval of a SIP revision that established a new BART determination for Cholla Generating Station (“Cholla BART Reassessment”). Noting certain similarities between the Coronado BART Alternative and the Cholla BART Reassessment, the commenter argued that the EPA had improperly “applied a completely different rationale and analysis when determining whether the two BART revisions complied with section 110(l) for regional haze purposes.” The commenter also criticized the EPA's responses to comments on section 110(l) issues related to the Cholla BART Reassessment and asserted that the EPA “should not attempt to justify the Coronado BART alternative on similar grounds.” In particular, the commenter asserted that the EPA had (1) conflated its section 110(l) analysis regarding NAAQS attainment with its section 110(l) analysis regarding Cholla's existing regional haze requirements, (2) unreasonably dismissed the relevant section 110(l) case law, and (3) incorrectly relied, in part, on post-2025 emissions reductions from Cholla to justify why the plan complied with section 110(l).

Response: We do not agree that the Coronado SIP Revision violates CAA section 110(l). As explained further below, the commenter has mischaracterized the requirements of section 110(l) and the EPA's interpretation of those requirements. Neither the statutory language nor the case law cited by the commenter support the commenter's interpretation that a SIP revision that allows for additional air emissions or less stringent requirements than the existing plan per se constitutes a violation of CAA section 110(l).

Section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision “if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in [CAA section 171]), or any other applicable requirement of [the CAA].” 31 This language does not prohibit the EPA from approving any SIP revision that weakens the existing plan's requirements or allows for an increase in emissions of a particular pollutant, nor has the EPA interpreted section 110(l) in this manner. The EPA's evaluation of whether a noninterference determination can be made under section 110(l) is a case-by-case assessment based on the specific facts and circumstances at issue. The commenter has selectively quoted from the EPA's prior actions and court cases concerning those actions in order to support their position. In particular, the commenter asserts that, “in Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006), EPA interpreted section 110(l) as allowing the agency to approve a plan revision that weakened some existing control measures while strengthening others, but only `[a]s long as actual emissions in the air are not increased.' ” However, the context for the quote makes clear that the EPA was not referring to a blanket prohibition on increases in emissions. Rather, we were describing our interpretation of section 110(l) as applied to a SIP revision that substituted emissions reductions to make up for increased emissions resulting from moving an existing control measure to a contingency measure. We determined that we could approve this change without requiring an attainment demonstration, explaining that:

31 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).

Prior to the time when the control strategy SIP revisions are due, to demonstrate no [interference] with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the Clean Air Act under section 110(l), EPA has interpreted this section such that States can substitute equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions to compensate for the control measure being moved from the regulatory portion to the contingency provisions. As long as actual emissions in the air are not increased, EPA believes that equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions will be acceptable to demonstrate non-interference.32

32 70 FR 28429, 28430 (May 18, 2005) (emphasis added).

Thus, in the circumstances presented in that case, we found that, rather than submit a new attainment demonstration, the state could instead substitute one measure for another with equivalent or greater emissions reductions/air quality benefit in order to demonstrate noninterference with attainment, maintenance, and reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements. However, the EPA has never indicated that such a substitution approach is required in all cases. In some cases, states can provide an air quality analysis, typically based on modeling, showing that removing a particular control measure will not interfere with attainment, maintenance, or RFP requirements.33 Additionally, a modeling-based demonstration of non-interference with these requirements may be possible where increases in one pollutant are offset by decreases in another pollutant and the modeling analysis shows that the decreases will provide at least equivalent air quality benefits for each affected NAAQS.34

33See “Demonstrating Noninterference Under Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act When Revising a State Implementation Plan,” 6, 10-11 (June 8, 2005) (Draft Guidance).

34Id. at 8.

The cases cited by the commenter also fail to support the commenter's interpretation. In Kentucky Resources Council, the court upheld the EPA's decision that a new attainment demonstration was not required in order to show that the SIP revision would not interfere pursuant to section 110(l).35 Thus, the examination of whether the SIP revision would “worsen air quality” was based on whether the area, which was designated as a nonattainment area for the relevant NAAQS, would have more difficulty in attaining and maintaining the NAAQS with the SIP revision—not, as the commenter argues here, whether the SIP revision would simply result in increased emissions. Similarly, the Ala. Envtl. Council v. EPA36 and Indiana v. EPA37 courts upheld the EPA's interpretation that section 110(l) allows for a substitution approach to demonstrate non-interference with the Act's requirements, but did not hold that an increase in emissions per se constituted a violation of section 110(l).

35 467 F.3d 986, 996 (6th Cir. 2006).

36 711 F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2013).

37 796 F.3d 803, 812 (7th Cir. 2015).

A fourth case cited by the commenter, Hall v. EPA, 38 concerned the EPA's analysis of non-interference with attainment requirements in a nonattainment area and did not address the Act's other requirements (including visibility protection requirements) or how those requirements apply in attainment areas.39 Thus, the case is not relevant to the commenters' objections, which specifically concern visibility protection requirements.40

38 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001).

39Id. at 1160, n.11 (“Our assessment of the EPA's reasoning does not apply to review of rules governing areas that are in attainment.”).

40See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (“[T]he Conservation Organizations take no issue with EPA's finding that the alternative does not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.”).

Two additional cases cited by the commenter concerned regional haze SIP actions, but do not support the commenter's contention that “after EPA approves a BART determination (or other regional haze requirement), the agency cannot later modify the BART determination in a manner that weakens it.” 41 WildEarth Guardians v. EPA42 involved a challenge to a regional haze plan under section 110(l)'s requirements concerning noninterference with attainment and maintenance, which the commenter acknowledges are not of concern in relation to the Coronado SIP Revision.43 In that case, the court found that the petitioner had identified nothing in the SIP revision at issue “that weakens or removes any pollution controls.” 44 Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the court did not suggest that, if the petitioner had identified such a provision, it would necessarily have constituted a violation of section 110(l). In fact, the court declined to decide if section 110(l) even applied to the plan in question, stating only in dicta that, “even if the SIP merely maintained the status quo, that would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.” 45

41Id. at 20.

42 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014).

43See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (“[T]he Conservation Organizations take no issue with EPA's finding that the alternative does not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.”).

44WildEarth Guardians, 759 F.3d at 1074.

45Id.

Oklahoma v. EPA46 affirmed the EPA's authority to review state BART determinations, based on, among other things, section 110(l). However, contrary to the commenter's suggestion, the Oklahoma court did not indicate that individual BART determinations themselves are “applicable requirements” for purposes of section 110(l). Rather, the court found that the underlying statutory requirements concerning visibility protection constitute “applicable requirements.” 47 Accordingly, it is these generally applicable statutory requirements for which a demonstration of non-interference is required.

46 723 F.3d 1201, 1204, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013).

47 The court specifically noted that the visibility protection provisions of CAA section 169A and 169B are “applicable requirements” for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). We agree with the commenter that these requirements are also “applicable requirements” for purposes of section 110(l).

In this instance, the critical statutory requirement is that the applicable implementation plan “contain such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal” of preventing any future and remedying any existing visibility impairment in Class I areas due to manmade air pollution.48 While measures for achieving “reasonable progress” generally include requirements for source-specific BART determinations,49 the EPA has long interpreted CAA section 169A(b)(2) to allow for the adoption of “implementation plan provisions other than those provided by BART analyses in situations where the agency reasonably concludes that more `reasonable progress' will thereby be attained” because “ `reasonable progress' is the overarching requirement that implementation plan revisions under 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2) must address.” 50 This interpretation has been upheld by both the Ninth Circuit 51 and the D.C. Circuit 52 and is reflected in the “Better than BART” provisions of the Regional Haze Rule that apply to the Coronado SIP Revision.53 Accordingly, in evaluating the Coronado SIP Revision under section 110(l) with respect to the Act's visibility protection requirements, the relevant question is not whether it would interfere with the BART determination in our FIP, but whether it would interfere with the overall statutory requirement for reasonable progress, as implemented through the “Better than BART” provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. For the reasons explained in our proposal and elsewhere in this document, we have determined that the Coronado SIP Revision satisfies the “Better than BART” requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, meaning that it will result in greater reasonable progress than the existing BART requirements for Coronado. Therefore, the Coronado SIP Revision complies with the Act's reasonable progress requirements. As such, we do not agree with the commenter that we must apply some separate criterion to determine whether the Coronado SIP Revision would interfere with those same requirements.

48 CAA section 169A(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2).

49 CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A).

50Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993).

51Id.

52Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340-41 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

53 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)-(6). See also Central Arizona Water Conservation District, 990 F.2d at 1543; Center for Energy and Economic Development, 398 F.3d at 660; Utility Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340-41 (upholding the “better-than-BART” provisions).

Furthermore, even if such a separate evaluation were necessary, we believe that the modeling performed to support ADEQ's demonstration of greater reasonable progress for the Interim Strategy is adequate to demonstrate non-interference with the Act's visibility protection provisions.54 As noted above, we interpret section 110(l) to allow for a modeling-based demonstration of non-interference with attainment, maintenance, and RFP requirements where increases in one pollutant are offset by decreases in another pollutant and the modeling analysis shows that the decreases will provide at least equivalent air quality benefits for each affected NAAQS.55 Similarly, such a modeling demonstration is appropriate to demonstrate non-interference with visibility protection requirements when reductions of one or more pollutants (in the case of the Interim Strategy, SO2 and PM) are being substituted for reductions of another pollutant (in the case of the Interim Strategy, NOX). As described in our proposal and elsewhere in this document, the modeling submitted with the Coronado SIP Revision demonstrates that the Interim Strategy will result in improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with 2014 Baseline Emissions (prong 1) and will result in improved visibility, on average, across all Class I areas, compared with BART on both the 20% best and worst days (prong 2).56 As the commenter noted, the modeling indicates that visibility improvement at certain Class I areas will be slightly less under the Interim Strategy as compared with BART between 2018 and 2025. However, we do not believe that a temporary decrease in the rate of improvement at these areas constitutes “interference” with the Act's visibility protection requirements, given that it is accompanied by a greater improvement at other Class I areas. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, “nothing in [CAA] § 169A(b)'s `reasonable progress' language requires at least as much improvement at each and every individual area as BART itself would achieve (much less improvement at each area at every instant) . . . .” 57 Furthermore, once the Final Strategy is implemented by 2026, we anticipated that there will be greater improvement across all Class I areas compared to BART.58 Therefore, we conclude that the Coronado SIP Revision will not interfere with the CAA's visibility protection requirements.

54 The commenter does not appear to object to our determination that implementation of the Final Strategy would clearly satisfy section 110(l) because it would result in overall greater emissions reductions compared to the BART Control Strategy.

55 Draft Guidance at 8.

56See 82 FR 19338-19341.

57Utility Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340-41.

58 We do not agree with the commenter that it is inappropriate to consider post-2025 emissions reductions under section 110(l), given that such reductions will help to ensure continued compliance with the Act's reasonable progress requirements.

The commenters' statements regarding the Cholla BART Reassessment are out of the scope of today's action. That action was a separate analysis based on the facts and circumstances of that SIP revision, which we finalized on March 17, 2017. We also do not agree with the commenter that we improperly applied a different rationale and analysis when determining whether the Coronado BART Alternative and the Cholla BART Reassessment complied with section 110(l). In both cases, we considered whether the relevant SIP revision would interfere with the applicable statutory requirements.59 However, despite some similarities between the two SIP revisions, they are not subject to all the same statutory requirements, so the respective section 110(l) analyses necessarily differ in some respects. In particular, because the Cholla BART Reassessment was a BART determination, we considered whether it met the CAA's BART requirements, as well as whether it was consistent with the CAA's long-term national goal of restoring natural visibility conditions at Class I areas.60 Because the CAA's BART requirements do not apply to a BART alternative,61 we did not consider them in reviewing the Coronado SIP Revision under section 110(l). Rather, as explained above, we have considered whether the Coronado SIP Revision is consistent with the CAA requirement for reasonable progress toward the long-term national goal.

59 81 FR 46862; 82 FR 15150.

60Id.

61See, e.g., Yazzie, 851 F.3d at 969 (affirming that statutory deadline for BART does not apply to a BART alternative).

Finally, while we do not agree that our responses to comments concerning the Cholla BART Reassessment were mistaken, those responses are not at issue in this action. To the extent that the commenter's concerns are relevant to the Coronado SIP Revision, we have addressed them above.

Comment: Earthjustice and EDF both raised concerns with the CAMx modeling relied upon by ADEQ and the EPA to determine that the Interim Strategy would result in greater reasonable progress than BART. They noted that, although ADEQ had performed additional analyses to determine if the modeled visibility changes could be attributed to emissions changes rather than model “noise,” the results were “still applicable to only one year's meteorological transport pattern.” They asserted that the EPA should require a demonstration that the emissions curtailments would result in better visibility conditions across varied air transport conditions.

EDF acknowledged that the EPA's modeling guidance allows the use of a single year of meteorological data for modeling of regional scale pollutants using CAMx. However, the commenters noted that the CAMx modeling for the Coronado BART Alternative focused on a single source's impacts on very specific geographic locations that “would have large variations due to yearly meteorological changes in wind transport patterns.” Earthjustice stated that most BART determinations and all BART alternatives that it was aware of relied on CALPUFF modeling. EDF and Earthjustice also noted that, where the EPA had previously used CAMx modeling for BART determinations, it was in conjunction with CALPUFF modeling, which typically uses at least a three-year meteorological database. They asserted that, in light of the small changes in visibility between the modeled emissions scenarios, “the difference in impacts that delineate one alternative curtailment period from another are within the margin of error for the model output.” They also stated that, if the difference were consistent from year to year, “it would provide more confidence in the resulting implementation of multiple curtailment periods.” Earthjustice added that “the demonstration provided by ADEQ only gives information about the relative performance of BART versus the alternative if the 2008 meteorological conditions are duplicated in every future year.”

Response: We acknowledge the commenters' concern about the robustness of a modeling analysis based on a single year of meteorology, given the year-to-year variability of meteorological conditions and their possible effect on visibility impacts. However, the Regional Haze Rule does not require modeling of a longer period to make a demonstration under the two-prong test, and EPA guidance also does not recommend a longer period. Rather, to address a range of meteorological conditions, the EPA's photochemical modeling guidance recommends modeling a full year. Our current guidance states that “the preferred approach for regional haze-related model applications is to simulate an entire, representative year.” 62 More recent draft guidance states:

62Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002 (April 2007) p. 149.

Regional Haze—Choose time periods which reflect the variety of meteorological conditions which represent visibility impairment on the 20% best and 20% worst days in the Class I areas being modeled (high and low concentrations necessary). This is best accomplished by modeling a full year.63

63Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5, and Regional Haze, 17 (December 2014) (draft).

Thus, modeling a full year with a photochemical model to represent visibility impairment on the 20% best and worst days is consistent with EPA guidance.

We also note that states and the EPA rarely, if ever, model more than a single year with a photochemical model even for NAAQS attainment demonstrations covering large urban areas with thousands of sources possibly subject to emission controls. A key reason for the practice and recommendation of modeling just a single year is the time and expense involved in running the computationally-intensive computer model and in preparing meteorological and emissions inputs. The emission inventory requires economic variables and population estimates for the whole area covered in the model domain, as well as the emissions calculations for the many sources of pollution in the domain. Meteorological and other model input parameters typically must be adjusted in an iterative process to ensure the model performs adequately. The model's performance must then be evaluated. All of these tasks must be done separately for each year. Thus, while modeling longer periods may improve the robustness of the modeling results, it also requires significant additional time and resources. Therefore, it is prudent to assess whether the benefits of the modeling justify the additional effort for each individual application. Given that the modeling for the Coronado SIP Revision affects only a single source for a limited period of time (i.e., the period of the Interim Strategy), we do not think it is reasonable to require more than a single year of photochemical modeling.

We note that the situation was different for the CALPUFF modeling that states and the EPA conducted for BART determinations, for which the EPA recommended that at least three years of meteorological data be used.64 Under the BART Guidelines, CALPUFF could be used for assessing the visibility impacts of a single source without the process of input adjustment and performance evaluation described above for photochemical models.65 Furthermore, the emission inventory for BART modeling was a single source, rather than the thousands of sources needed in a photochemical model such as CAMx. The meteorological inputs to CALPUFF are also simpler than for a photochemical model, and they were developed by multistate Regional Planning Organizations, such as the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), for use in BART determinations for numerous different facilities. In summary, while the CALPUFF modeling used for BART determinations employed multiple years of meteorology, the cost and effort involved was lower than for CAMx, and it was spread over multiple states and sources. By contrast, the Interim Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision affects only a single source for a limited period of time. Accordingly, we find that modeling multiple years with CAMx for the two-prong test applied to the Interim Strategy would constitute a disproportionately high level of effort relative to the modest benefit of such an approach.

64See 70 FR 39107-39108 (“For assessing the fifth factor, the degree of improvement in visibility from various BART control options, the States may run CALPUFF or another appropriate dispersion model to predict visibility impacts . . . The maximum 24-hour emission rates would be modeled for a period of three or five years of meteorological data.”).

65See, e.g., BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.5. (“Use CALPUFF or other appropriate dispersion model to determine the visibility improvement expected at a Class I area from the potential BART control technology applied to the source”); 70 FR 39123 (“For the specific purposes of the regional haze rule's BART provisions . . . we have concluded that CALPUFF is sufficiently reliable to inform the decision-making process.”).

Regarding the specific year chosen for modeling the Interim Strategy, as discussed in connection with SRP's comments and the analysis submitted by Ramboll Environ,66 we find that the 2008 meteorology year was adequately representative for the two-prong test. In addition, as explained further below, that analysis presented evidence that 2008 was a conservative year, in that the Interim Strategy would be expected to show a greater benefit compared to the baseline and BART in other years.

66 “Additional Documentation on the Coronado Generating Station Better-than-BART Modeling Analysis to Address EPA's October 2016 Request”, Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph Morris, Ramboll Environ to Bill McClellan, Salt River Project (April 6, 2017).

Comment: Earthjustice and EDF expressed concern about the use of a projected 2020 inventory rather than clean conditions or the inventory of a “known year” for the CAMx modeling. Earthjustice asserted that, “[t]o the extent EPA considers 2020 to be more representative of future or cleaner air quality conditions, CAMx should instead have been run with only single source emissions plus nonanthropogenic emissions to simulate reaction chemistry under natural conditions.” They argued that the EPA must include CALPUFF modeling to help support the conclusion that the Coronado BART Alternative is in fact better than BART “when looking at source impacts compared with natural conditions.”

Response: We do not agree that ADEQ should have used natural conditions or the inventory of a “known” (i.e., past) year to evaluate the Interim Strategy. The Regional Haze Rule does not identify which background conditions states must use for evaluating greater reasonable progress under the two-prong test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). However, in the preamble to the final rule promulgating the two-prong test, we explained that:

The underlying purpose of both prongs of the test is to assess whether visibility conditions at Class I areas would be better with the alternative program in place than they would without it. . . . In both cases, the logical reference point is visibility conditions as they are expected to be at the time of program implementation but in the absence of the program.” 67

67 70 FR 39104, 39138 (July 6, 2005).

In other words, the projected conditions at the time the BART alternative will be implemented, including emissions from all other sources, but assuming that no emission reductions from BART or the BART alternative have yet occurred, are an appropriate background for modeling under the two-prong test. Here, the Interim Strategy will be implemented between 2018 and 2025, so ADEQ's decision to use the 2020 emissions inventory as the background conditions for comparing the Interim Strategy to BART was reasonable.

We also do not believe that it is necessary to conduct CALPUFF modeling to support the conclusion that the Coronado BART Alternative would result in greater reasonable progress than BART. While ADEQ could have elected to conduct CALPUFF modeling to make a demonstration of greater reasonable progress, it instead chose to use CAMx modeling to make this demonstration. As explained in our proposal:

CAMx has a scientifically current treatment of chemistry to simulate the transformation of emissions into visibility-impairing particles of species such as ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, and is often employed in large-scale modeling when many sources of pollution and/or long transport distances are involved. Photochemical grid models like CAMx include all emissions sources and have realistic representations of formation, transport, and removal processes of the particulate matter that causes visibility degradation.68

68 82 FR 19338-19339.

Because it incorporates the many emissions sources that create the background conditions at the time the BART alternative will be implemented, CAMx is well suited for modeling under the two-prong test.69 Furthermore, as a result of recent developments in modeling techniques,70 the EPA and states have begun to use photochemical models such as CAMx to assess the visibility impacts from individual sources such as Coronado.71 Thus, ADEQ appropriately relied on CAMx modeling to assess the Coronado BART Alternative under the two-prong modeling test.

69 As explained in response to comments above, it was appropriate and reasonable for the State to apply the two-prong modeling test to the Coronado BART Alternative.

70See, e.g., 82 FR 5182, 5196 (“Source sensitivity and apportionment techniques implemented in photochemical grid models have evolved sufficiently and provide the opportunity for estimating potential visibility and deposition impacts from one or a small group of emission sources using a full science photochemical grid model.”).

71See, e.g., 81 FR 296, 327-28 (January 5, 2016) (describing the use of CAMx for evaluating visibility impacts of sources in a Texas Regional Haze FIP).

Comment: Earthjustice and EDF objected to the fact that the CAMx modeling used to assess the Coronado BART Alternative was limited to a range of 300 kilometers (km), given that the EPA has previously used CAMx to assess impacts beyond the 300 km range. EDF stated that the EPA should explain why the 300 km limit was appropriate. Earthjustice argued that the EPA should include modeling results for Class I areas outside of 300 km.

Response: We agree with the commenters that there is no a priori reason to limit the modeling under the two-prong test to Class I areas within 300 km.72 We nevertheless find that the set of Class I areas evaluated in the CAMx modeling is adequately representative in this instance. The 300 km radius used in the modeling covers a large region, a range of geographic settings, and a full range of compass directions from Coronado. In addition, the visibility impacts of Coronado's emissions generally decline with distance.73 Because of that, when comparing projected visibility conditions under the BART Alternative scenario to projected visibility conditions under the baseline scenario, the differences between the two scenarios generally decline with distance. The same is true when comparing the BART Alternative to BART. As a result, while including more distant areas would have a small effect on the numerical values used in the two-prong test, doing so would be unlikely to change the outcome of the test.

72 Neither the Regional Haze Rule nor EPA guidance define “affected” Class I areas for purposes of the two-prong test.

73 This is illustrated in the graphic “Coronado CAMx Baseline Impacts—Baseline delta DV Impact vs. km distance,” in the file titled “Coronado_baseline_CAMx_ddv_vs_distance.pdf,” available in the docket for this action.

Comment: SRP commented that it strongly supports the EPA's:

• Proposed approval of ADEQ's demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) that the Coronado BART Alternative Interim Strategy will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART at Coronado;

• proposed approval of the CAMx modeling used by ADEQ;

• determination that the Coronado BART Alternative Final Strategy will result in greater emission reductions than BART for Coronado; and

• determination that the Final Strategy and its associated emission reductions are not necessary to demonstrate that the Coronado BART Alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART during the period of the first long-term strategy.

Response: We acknowledge the comments.

Comment: SRP urged the EPA to note the assessment that ADEQ conducted that shows the importance of SO2 (and resulting sulfate) reductions in improving visibility in Class I areas potentially affected by Coronado. In particular, SRP asserted that:

ADEQ demonstrated that SO2 emission reductions, such as those that would occur under the [Coronado] BART Alternative, are very significant in light of the facts that “the SO2-attributed visibility extinction is generally more than three times the NOX-attributed visibility extinction” and that, in particular, “the ratios of SO2-attributed visibility extinction to NOX-attributed visibility extinction averaged over all Class I areas are 3.7, 4.2 and 4.2 for the 20% best days, the 20% worst days, and all days, respectively.”

Response: As noted in footnote 31 of our proposal,74 ADEQ's “Supplemental Analysis of IMPROVE Monitoring Data” is not directly relevant to the State's demonstration of greater reasonable progress under the two-prong test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), so we did not consider it in evaluating the State's demonstration. The results of the CAMx modeling establish that, through a combination of controls, emission reductions, atmospheric chemistry, and meteorology, the Coronado BART Alternative will result in greater reasonable progress than BART, as required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).

74 See 82 FR 19338, dated April, 27, 2017; footnote 31.

Comment: SRP stated that, while the Coronado BART Alternative was proposed to be approved under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), it is also approvable under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) under the weight-of-evidence test. SRP further noted that “[t]he clear weight of evidence test allows states to take into consideration a wide range of factors, visibility metrics, or other relevant considerations in making a better-than-BART determination.”

Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment.

Comment: SRP noted that the EPA described the Interim Strategy as “in effect from December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025,” and indicated that the Final Strategy “would take effect on January 1, 2026.” The commenter stated that, “the December 31, 2025, date represents a deadline for SRP to install and operate an SCR on Unit 1 or close Unit 1, rather than the conclusion of the effective period for the Interim Strategy” and requested that the EPA clarify that the installation and operation of the SCR on Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1 will occur no later than December 31, 2025, and that the Interim Strategy will be in effect until the installation of SCR on Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1.

Response: We agree with the commenter that the installation and operation of the SCR on Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1 must occur no later than December 31, 2025, and that the Interim Strategy will be in effect until the installation of SCR on Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1. We have made this clarification in this final notice.

Comment: SRP noted that the EPA described the SO2 emission cap as “plant-wide” and “facility-wide.” The commenter recommended that the EPA “clarify that the 1,970 tpy SO2 emission cap applies to the aggregate annual emissions from Unit 1 and Unit 2 only and does not apply to any emissions from any other sources at the site.” The commenter also noted that, “[i]n the event that Unit 1 shuts down, the SO2-emission tonnage limit applicable after the shutdown of that unit is 1,080 tons per calendar year.”

Response: We agree with the commenter that the 1,970 tpy SO2 emission cap applies to the aggregate emissions from Unit 1 and Unit 2, and that, if Unit 1 shuts down, an SO2 emission cap of 1,080 tpy would apply to Unit 2. We have made this clarification in this final notice.

Comment: SRP asserted that the EPA incorrectly stated that “the Coronado SIP Revision will require equivalent or lower emissions of NOX, PM and SO2 for all future years, compared to the emission levels currently allowed under the applicable implementation plan (including both the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and the Arizona Regional Haze FIP).” The commenter noted that the Interim Strategy requires fewer NOX reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP.

Response: We agree with SRP that the Interim Strategy requires fewer NOX reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP between December 5, 2017, and December 31, 2025. However, the statement from our proposal quoted by the commenter refers to “the emission levels currently allowed under the applicable implementation plan.” 75 Because the compliance date for the NOX emission limits in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP is December 5, 2017, the applicable implementation plan does not currently limit NOX emissions from Coronado. Thus, as correctly noted in our proposal, the Coronado SIP Revision will require lower emissions of NOX, PM and SO2 for all future years, compared to the emission levels currently allowed under the applicable implementation plan.

75 82 FR 19344 (emphasis added).

Comment: SRP included as an attachment to its comments a technical memorandum from Ramboll Environ that evaluated whether the CAMx modeling results for the two-prong test were influenced by numerical noise, based on a spatial and numerical analysis of CAMx model outputs for visibility and its sulfate and nitrate components.76 The components reflect the differences in SO2 and NOX, respectively, between BART and the Interim Strategy. The differences showed a spatial pattern consistent with realistic gradual variation in the atmosphere, rather than random variation as would be expected from numerical noise. Therefore, the memorandum concluded that the modeled numerical differences represent real visibility improvements and are not just numerical artifacts.

76 Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph Morris, Ramboll Environ (September 22, 2016).

Response: This same analysis was included in the Coronado SIP Revision and evaluated for our proposal. We reaffirm our finding that the analysis supports the conclusion that the two-prong test results indicate actual visibility improvement under the Interim Strategy compared to BART and no degradation relative to the baseline.77

77 82 FR 19341.

Comment: SRP included as an attachment to its comments a second memorandum from Ramboll Environ analyzing (1) whether the meteorology from the year that was used for modeling (2008) was adequately representative of other years and (2) whether, extending the length of the curtailment periods under the Interim Strategy would give additional visibility benefits.

The first of three Ramboll Environ analyses of the representativeness of 2008 was a comparison of 2008 temperatures and precipitation to typical conditions based on more than 100 years of meteorological data. The memorandum noted that temperature affects the oxidizing potential of the atmosphere, which in turn affects the conversion of SO2 and NOX emissions into visibility-impairing sulfates and nitrates. Ramboll Environ found that 2008 was somewhat warmer than the average, but that generally the temperature was well within the normal range of variation. The memorandum also noted that precipitation can remove visibility-impairing pollutants from the atmosphere and found that 2008 precipitation was classified as “Near Normal.” Accordingly, Ramboll Environ concluded that 2008 was reasonably representative for purposes of the visibility modeling.

In a second analysis, Ramboll Environ examined visibility-impairing ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate concentrations during 2000-2012 as measured at four Class I areas in different compass directions from Coronado. These are shown as time series bar or line graphs for the various pollutants and areas. Ramboll Environ found that the annual averages for 2008 were near the middle of the averages for the individual years from 2000-2012. Monthly averages for 2008 were also consistent with the overall range seen from 2000-2012. Compared to other years, monthly sulfate averages for 2008 tended to be on the high side during March, April, and September, and on the low side in mid-summer and in December through February, but nevertheless consistent with the overall range seen for 2000-2012. Ramboll Environ concluded that, because the curtailment periods for Interim Strategy options IS3 and IS4 78 are from November 21 through January 21, overlapping the period for which 2008 tended to have lower sulfate, the modeled visibility improvement for these options would also tend to be lower than would be expected for other years. That is, the actual visibility benefits of these options would generally be expected to be larger than the modeling results indicate. The same conclusion applies to nitrate, for which 2008 monthly averages tend to be on the low side, compared to the averages for 2000-2012 years during the months that include the curtailment periods (November, December, and January).

78 The memorandum refers to IS3 and IS4 as BtB3 and BtB4, respectively.

In its third analysis, Ramboll Environ examined the monthly distribution of the 20% worst visibility days to see how many fell within the November 21-January 20 curtailment period for 2008 in comparison to 2000-2012. This analysis showed that 2008 had a lower than average number of 20% worst visibility days within this period. Ramboll Environ concluded that, because more of the 20% worst visibility days would fall within the curtailment period in a typical year, the actual visibility benefits of the Interim Strategy would generally be larger than the modeling results indicate.

Ramboll Environ's analysis of the approximately 60-day curtailment period used in Interim Strategy options IS3 and IS4 relied on post-processing of modeling results to assess extending the period by 20, 40, 60, and 80 days. Ramboll Environ presented bar graphs showing the amount by which extending the curtailment period impacted the strengths of the directional results of the two-prong test. For prong 1, the visibility benefit of the Interim Strategy increased very little as the curtailment period was extended. For prong 2, Ramboll Environ stated that even doubling the curtailment period would yield only a 0.002 deciview improvement over the proposed period, which Ramboll Environ viewed as small. Therefore, SRP concluded that extending the curtailment period would have only a small visibility benefit.

Response: We acknowledge the additional analysis provided by SRP, which supports the conclusion that 2008 is a representative year for modeling and that modeling results for this single year are adequate for evaluating the Interim Strategy under the two-prong test. Although the Ramboll Environ analysis primarily addressed IS3 and IS4, the curtailment period for IS2 (October 21-January 31) also includes the months of November through January, so the same conclusion also applies to IS2.

We acknowledge the analysis of extending the curtailment period, but we note that this analysis is not necessary to demonstrate that the Interim Strategy would result in greater reasonable progress than BART. It is sufficient that the modeling demonstrates that each of the Interim Strategy options passes the two-prong test.

IV. Final Action

For the reasons explained in our proposal and in our responses to comments in this document, we have determined that the Coronado SIP Revision will provide for greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART. We have also determined that the Coronado SIP Revision meets all other requirements of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations. Therefore, we are approving the Coronado SIP Revision into the Arizona SIP. Because this approval fills the gap in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by the EPA's prior partial disapproval with respect to Coronado, we are withdrawing those portions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that address BART for Coronado. Additionally, we are taking final action to remove those portions of the Arizona SIP that have either been superseded by previously-approved revisions to the Arizona SIP or are being superseded by this final approval of the Coronado SIP revision.

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

As explained above, the Coronado SIP Revision will result in reduced emissions of both SO2 and PM10 compared to the existing Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP requirements. While the Coronado SIP Revision will result in fewer NOX reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP would have required between 2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NOX emissions remain at or below current levels until 2025, after which it will require NOX emissions reductions equivalent to or greater than would have been required under the Arizona Regional Haze FIP. Furthermore, Coronado is located in an area that is designated attainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable, or has not yet been designated for each of the current NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA believes that this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the state permit provisions described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.79

79 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule applies to only a single facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action approving revisions to a State Implementation Plan and removing the applicable Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze applies to only a single facility and is therefore is a Rule of Particular Applicability that is exempted under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule applies to only a single facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a “collection of information” as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. The owner of facility affected by this rule, SRP, exceeds this threshold.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

F. 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.

G. 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 any Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. 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 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.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. The EPA is not revising any technical standards or imposing any new technical standards in this action.

K. 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 documentation for this decision is contained in section V above.

L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the EPA has determined that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Coronado is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore, CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.” The EPA determines that the provisions of 307(d) apply to the EPA's action on the Coronado SIP Revision.

M. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability. The EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability that only applies to a single named facility.

N. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility.

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: September 28, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, EPA.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 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 D—Arizona 2. Section 52.120 is amended: a. In paragraph (d), under the table heading “EPA-Approved Source-Specific Requirements” by adding an entry for “Coronado Generating Station” after the entry for “Cholla Power Plant;” b. In paragraph (e), under the table heading “Table 1—EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures” by adding an entry for “Coronado Generating Station” after the entry for “Cholla SIP Revision.”
§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

(d) * * *

EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements Name of source Order/permit No. Effective date EPA approval date Explanation Arizona Department of Environmental Quality *         *         *         *         *         *         * Coronado Generating Station Permit #64169 (as amended by Significant Revision #63088) Cover Page and Attachment “E”: BART Alternatives November 9, 2017 October 10, 2017, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION] Permit issued by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Submitted on December 15, 2016. *         *         *         *         *         *         *

(e) * * *

Table 1—EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures [Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1 Name of SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment
  • area or title/subject
  • State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
    The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (Excluding Part D Elements and Plans) *         *         *         *         *         *         * Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan for the Salt River Project Coronado Generating Station, excluding Appendix B Source-Specific December 15, 2016 October 10, 2017, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION] BART Alternative for Coronado Generating Station adopted December 14, 2016. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.
    3. Section 52.145 is amended by: a. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1). b. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)-(vi). c. Removing and reserving paragraph (f).
    [FR Doc. 2017-21604 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0617; FRL-9969-04-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; General Burning Rule Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on January 28, 2013, and July 8, 2015. The submittals request SIP revisions to the State's General Burning rule; a repeal and reenactment of the General Burning rule with changes to applicability, timing and duration of burning windows, and an amendment to exempt Native American ceremonial burning during restricted burning days.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0617. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available 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:

    Chris Dresser, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6385, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 13, 2017 (82 FR 32282), the EPA proposed to approve Utah's January 28, 2013 SIP submission, which repeals and reenacts the General Burning provisions in R307-202 with several amendments (discussed in the proposed rulemaking). Additionally, the EPA proposed approval of Utah's July 8, 2015 revisions, which exempts ceremonial burning conducted by a “Native American spiritual advisor” during restricted burn days. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action on both SIP submittals. The reasons for our approval are provided in detail in the proposed rule.

    II. Response to Comments

    We received no comments on the proposed rule.

    III. Final Action

    For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving revisions to Sections in R307-202 of the State's General Burning provisions from the January 28, 2013 and July 8, 2015 submittals.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Utah General Burning provisions described in the amendments set forth to 40 CFR part 52 below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements; this final action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);

    • 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, Aug. 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 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, Feb. 16, 1994).

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Suzanne J. Bohan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart TT—Utah 2. In § 52.2320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry “R307-202” to read as follows:
    § 52.2320 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Rule No. Rule title State effective date Final rule citation, date Comments * * * * * * * R307-202. Emission Standards: General Burning R307-202 Emission Standards: General Burning 10/6/2014 Insert Federal Register citation], 10/10, 2017 * * * * * * *
    [FR Doc. 2017-21612 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204; FRL-9969-03-Region 9] Interim Final Determination To Defer Sanctions; California; Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an interim final determination to defer the imposition of offset and highway sanctions in the Los Angeles-South Coast air basin (“South Coast”) based on a proposed approval of revisions to the South Coast portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in this Federal Register. The revisions concern Clean Air Act (CAA) reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT) and reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the South Coast.

    DATES:

    This interim final determination is effective on October 10, 2017. However, comments will be accepted until November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, at [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited 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. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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:

    Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background

    On April 14, 2016 (80 FR 22025), we published a final action to partially approve and partially disapprove SIP revisions submitted by California to address CAA Moderate area attainment plan requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area (“2012 PM2.5 Plan”). As part of that action, we disapproved two elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan because they did not fully meet the requirements for RACM/RACT-level controls under sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 172(c)(1) of the CAA and thus also did not meet the requirement for RFP under section 172(c)(2) of the CAA. This disapproval action became effective on May 16, 2016, and started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after May 16, 2016, and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to CAA section 179 and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. Therefore, offset sanctions will apply on November 16, 2017, and highway sanctions will apply on May 16, 2018, unless the EPA determines that the deficiencies forming the bases for the disapprovals have been corrected.

    On March 17, 2017, the State of California submitted, as a revision to the California SIP, amendments to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD or “District”) Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program, which consists of SCAQMD rules 2000 to 2020 and applies to stationary sources that emit at least four tons per year of nitrogen oxides or sulfur oxides in the South Coast. Additionally, on May 22, 2017, CARB submitted the SCAQMD's public draft version of the “Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards” (“2017 RACT Supplement”).1 We proposed to approve the revised RECLAIM rules on June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25996), and fully approved these rules on September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43176). We proposed to approve the 2017 RACT Supplement on June 15, 2017 (82 FR 27451), and fully approved it on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43850).2

    1 California submitted the 2017 RACT Supplement to address deficiencies identified in both the EPA's April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and the EPA's separate proposal to partially disapprove the District's “2016 AQMP Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration,” which California had submitted to address RACT requirements under CAA section 182(b) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the South Coast and Coachella Valley nonattainment areas (see 82 FR 27451, June 15, 2017).

    2 California adopted the 2017 RACT Supplement on July 7, 2017, and submitted it to the EPA on July 27, 2017.

    In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, we are proposing to approve the RACM/RACT and RFP demonstrations in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan based on our final approvals of the revised RECLAIM rules and the 2017 RACT Supplement, because we believe these SIP submissions correct the deficiencies identified in our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval action. Based on today's proposed approval, we are taking this interim final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to defer the imposition of the offset sanctions and highway sanctions triggered by our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval.

    The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our assessment described in this interim final determination and the proposed full approval of the RACM/RACT and RFP demonstrations in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, we would take subsequent final action to reimpose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d). If no comments are submitted that change our assessment, we will take final action to approve the RACM/RACT and RFP demonstrations in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, and all sanctions and sanction clocks related to the May 16, 2016 disapproval action with respect to these elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan will be permanently terminated on the effective date of the final approval.

    II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to defer the imposition of CAA section 179 sanctions associated with our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan based on our concurrent proposal to determine that our prior approvals of the District's revised RECLAIM rules and 2017 RACT Supplement correct the deficiencies that initiated sanctions clocks.

    Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has corrected the deficiencies previously identified in the EPA's partial disapproval action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action the EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the EPA's determination after the effective date, and the EPA will consider any comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.

    The EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The EPA has reviewed the State's revised RECLAIM rules and 2017 RACT Supplement and, through a separate action, is proposing to find that the State has corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to impose sanctions when the State has most likely taken appropriate action to correct the deficiencies that triggered the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has corrected the deficiencies prior to the rulemaking approving the State's actual submission addressing those deficiencies. Therefore, the EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to defer sanctions while the EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the State's submission addressing the deficiencies. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this action is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action defers federal sanctions and imposes no additional requirements. 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to Congress and the Comptroller General. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the issuing agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA has made such good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of October 10, 2017. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which 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, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 26, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21611 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0019; FRL-9969-05-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; North Dakota; Revisions to Air Pollution Control Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of North Dakota on January 28, 2013, and April 22, 2014. The revisions are to Article 33-15 Air Pollution Control rules of the North Dakota Administrative Code. The revisions include amendments to add EPA Reference Method 22 to determine compliance with a visible emissions limit, add significance levels for PM2.5, modify existing significance levels for NO2 and SO2 and remove the significance level for PM10. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0019. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available 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:

    Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 28, 2017 (82 FR 35153), the EPA proposed to approve revisions to Article 33-15 Air Pollution Control rules of the North Dakota Administrative Code submitted by the State of North Dakota on January 28, 2013, and April 22, 2014. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action on a revision submitted in the January 28, 2013 submittal to revise significance levels. The North Dakota State Health Council adopted those amendments on August 14, 2012 (effective January 1, 2013). In addition, we are also taking final action on a revision that was included in the April 22, 2014 submittal to add EPA Reference Method 22 for determining opacity for limits expressed as zero percent opacity. The North Dakota State Health Council adopted those amendments on February 11, 2014 (effective April 1, 2014). The reasons for our approval are provided in detail in the proposed rule.

    II. Response to Comments

    We received no comments on our proposed rule.

    III. Final Action

    For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving revisions to sections of the State's Air Pollution Control rules from the January 28, 2013, and April 22, 2014 submittals. A summary of the revisions in North Dakota's Air Pollution Control rules the EPA is approving is provided in Table 1.

    Table 1—List of North Dakota Revisions That the EPA Is Approving Revisions in January 28, 2013 and April 22, 2014 submittals that EPA is approving January 28, 2013 submittal: 33-15-14-02.5.a. April 22, 2014 submittal: 33-15-03-05.2. IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of North Dakota Air Pollution Control rules described in the amendments set forth to 40 CFR part 52 below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements; this final action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);

    • 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, Aug. 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 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, Feb. 16, 1994).

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Suzanne J. Bohan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart JJ—North Dakota
    2. In § 52.1820, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries “33-15-03-05” and “33-15-14-02” to read as follows:
    § 52.1820 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Rule No. Rule title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA
  • effective
  • date
  • Final rule
  • citation/date
  • Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 33-15-03. Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants *         *         *         *         *         *         * 33-15-03-05 Method of measurement 4/1/2014 11/9/2017 [insert Federal Register citation], 10/10/2017 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 33-15-14. Designated Air Contaminant Sources Permit To Construct Minor Source Permit To Operate Title V Permit To Operate *         *         *         *         *         *         * 33-15-14-02 Permit to construct 1/1/2013 11/9/2017 [insert Federal Register citation], 10/10/2017 Excluding subsections 1, 12, 13, 3.c., 13.b.1., 5, 13.c., 13.i(5), 13.o., and 19 (one sentence) which were subsequently revised and approved. See 57 FR 28619 (6/26/92), regarding State's commitment to meet requirements of EPA's “Guideline on Air Quality Models (revised).” *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-21606 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0360; FRL-9968-90-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Updates AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of revisions to Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), on May 8, 2013, and August 23, 2016. The portions of these SIP revisions that EPA is finalizing approval of relate to the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0360. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On May 8, 2013 and August 23, 2016, ADEM submitted SIP revisions for EPA's approval that include changes to Alabama's PSD permitting regulations, among other changes. In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38660), EPA proposed to approve certain portions of these submittals that make changes to ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-3-14-.04—“Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD)),” which applies to the construction or modification of any major stationary source in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable as required by part C of title I of the CAA.

    Alabama's May 8, 2013, SIP submittal includes changes to Rule 335-3-14-.04 to address the Federal rule entitled “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5): Amendment to the Definition of `Regulated NSR Pollutant' Concerning Condensable Particulate Matter,” 77 FR 65107 (October 25, 2012) (hereinafter referred to as the PM2.5 Condensables Correction Rule),1 and plantwide applicability limits (PALs) for greenhouse gases (GHGs) as allowed in the Federal rule entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits,” 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012) (hereinafter referred to as the GHG Step 3 Rule).2 In addition, the SIP submittal includes changes to the definition of GHGs in Rule 335-3-14-.04 and Rule 335-3-16 (regarding major source operating permits) to address EPA's July 20, 2011 rule deferring PSD requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to as the “Biomass Deferral Rule”).3 Alabama's May 8, 2013, SIP submission also includes the following changes to other Alabama rules: Changes to the definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) at Rule 335-3-1-.02; changes to the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the Federal New Source Performance Standards in Chapter 335-3-10 and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in Chapter 335-3-11; and changes regarding transportation conformity provisions at Rule Chapter 335-3-16.

    1 Given the corrections to the federal definition of “particulate matter emissions” in the PM2.5 Condensables Correction Rule, EPA is removing the note regarding “particulate matter emissions” in the table entry for Rule 335-3-14-.04 at 40 CFR 52.50(c). In addition, EPA is removing the note regarding PM2.5 Significant Impact Levels (SILs) in the table entry for Rule 335-3-14-.04 at 40 CFR 52.50(c) because, on October 9, 2014, ADEM submitted a letter to EPA withdrawing these SILs from EPA's consideration as included in a May 2, 2011, SIP submittal.

    2 For background information on GHG permitting, including the GHG Step 3 Rule, see 82 FR 38662.

    3 Emissions of CO2 from a stationary source directly resulting from the combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other than fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon (e.g., calcium carbonate) and biologically-based material (non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material originating from plants, animals or micro-organisms, including products, by-products, residues and waste from agriculture, forestry and related industries as well as the non-fossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes, including gases and liquids recovered from the decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material).

    Alabama's August 23, 2016, SIP submittal includes changes to Rule 335-3-14-.04 and Rule Chapter 335-3-16 to remove the treatment of GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or a modification thereof) in PSD and title V permitting requirements.4 The submittal also withdraws the portion of the State's May 8, 2013, SIP submittal that revises Rule 335-3-14-.04 to address the Biomass Deferral Rule and makes changes to the GHG Step 3 language proposed in Alabama's May 8, 2013, submittal.

    4i.e., removing regulation of “GHG-only” sources.

    In the August 15, 2017, proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve only the portions of the May 8, 2013, submittal that make changes to the GHG PAL provisions pursuant to the GHG Step 3 rule and the portions of the August 23, 2016, submittal that discontinue regulation of GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or a modification thereof) in PSD and title V permitting requirements and that make changes to the GHG Step 3 language proposed in Alabama's May 8, 2013, submittal. EPA did not propose any action on the remaining portions of these submittals. The details of Alabama's SIP revisions and the rationale for EPA's action are further explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before September 14, 2017. EPA did not receive any comments on the proposed action, adverse or otherwise.

    II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of ADEM Administrative Code Rules 335-3-14-.04(1)(k), 335-3-14-.04(2)(a)(ii), and 335-3-14-.04(b)4, state effective on November 25, 2014. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion into Alabama's SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.5

    5 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing approval of portions of Alabama's May 8, 2013, and August 23, 2016, SIP submittals that revise the PSD permitting program at Rule 335-3-14-.04—“Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD))” by removing language regulating GHG-only sources and by adding language to the PAL provisions.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 21, 2017. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

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

    Subpart B—Alabama 2. In § 52.50, the table in paragraph (c) is amended under “Chapter No. 335-3-14 Air Permits” by revising the entry for “Section 335-3-14-.04” to read as follows:
    § 52.50 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Alabama Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter No. 335-3-14 Air Permits *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 335-3-14-.04 Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas [Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD)) 11/25/2014 10/10/2017
  • [Insert Federal Register citation]
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-21605 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0524; FRL-9968-35—Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve and conditionally approve revisions to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD or “District”) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standards”) in the Antelope Valley ozone nonattainment area. The EPA is also taking final action to approve AVAQMD negative declarations into the SIP for the 1997 and the 2008 ozone standards.

    We are approving local SIP revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective on November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0524. 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 through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    On July 28, 2017 (82 FR 35149), the EPA proposed action on the following documents submitted into the California SIP.

    Local agency Document Adopted Submitted AVAQMD AVAQMD 8-Hour Reasonably Available Control Technology—State Implementation Plan Analysis (RACT SIP Analysis)—1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS “2006 RACT SIP” 09/19/06 01/31/07 AVAQMD AVAQMD 8-Hour Reasonably Available Control Technology—State Implementation Plan Analysis (2015 RACT SIP Analysis)—2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS “2015 RACT SIP” 07/21/15 10/23/15 AVAQMD AVAQMD Federal Negative Declarations for Twenty Control Techniques Guidelines Source Categories 07/21/15 10/23/15 AVAQMD AVAQMD Federal Negative Declarations for Seven Control Techniques Guidelines Source Categories 12/20/16 06/07/17

    Specifically, the EPA proposed to conditionally approve AVAQMD's 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs with respect to Rule 462, Organic Liquid Loading; Rule 1110.2, Emissions from Stationary, Non-road & Portable Internal Combustion Engines; Rule 1151, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations; and Rule 1171, Solvent Cleaning Operations. Simultaneously, EPA proposed to fully approve the remainder of the 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs, and to fully approve AVAQMD's negative declarations submitted on October 23, 2015 and June 7, 2017. We simultaneously withdrew our December 15, 2016 proposal to partially approve and partially disapprove AVAQMD's 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs because the AVAQMD committed to address the identified deficiencies within one year of the approval of the plan revision.

    We proposed to approve these submittals because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the submittals and our evaluation.

    II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

    III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in subsections 110(k)(3) and 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA is conditionally approving AVAQMD's 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs with respect to Rule 462, Organic Liquid Loading; Rule 1110.2, Emissions from Stationary, Non-road & Portable Internal Combustion Engines; Rule 1151, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations; and Rule 1171, Solvent Cleaning Operations, and fully approving the remainder of the 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs and AVAQMD's negative declarations submitted on October 23, 2015 and June 7, 2017 into the California SIP.

    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 state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Part 52, 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 paragraphs (c)(358)(ii), (c)(493) and (494) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan—in part.

    (c) * * *

    (358) * * *

    (ii) Additional materials. (A) Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District.

    (1) 8-Hour Reasonably Available Control Technology—State Implementation Plan Analysis (RACT SIP Analysis), August 2006, adopted on September 19, 2006.

    (2) [Reserved]

    (493) The following plan was submitted by on October 23, 2015 by the Governor's designee.

    (i) [Reserved]

    (ii) Additional materials. (A) Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District.

    (1) 8-Hour Reasonably Available Control Technology—State Implementation Plan Analysis (RACT SIP Analysis), July 2015, adopted on July 21, 2015.

    (2) Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration (8 hr Ozone Standard) for Twenty CTG Source Categories, signed June 15, 2015 and adopted on July 21, 2015.

    (494) The following plan revision was submitted on June 7, 2017 by the Governor's designee.

    (i) [Reserved]

    (ii) Additional materials. (A) Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration (8-hour Ozone Standards) for Seven Control Techniques Guideline Source Categories, signed October 19, 2016 and adopted on December 20, 2016.

    (2) [Reserved]

    3. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(6)(x) and (xi) to read as follows:
    § 52.222 Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *

    (6) * * *

    (x) The following negative declarations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were adopted by the District on July 21, 2015 and submitted to EPA on October 23, 2015.

    CTG source category CTG reference document Bulk Gasoline Plants Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants (EPA-450/2-77-035, 12/1977). Coils Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks (EPA-450/2-77-008, 05/1977). Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials (EPA-453/R-08-004, 09/2008). Fixed-Roof Tanks Control Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-77-036, 12/1977). Flat Wood Paneling Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (EPA-453/R-06-004, 09/2006). Floating-Roof Tanks Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-78-047, 12/1978). Insulation of Magnet Wire Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire (EPA-450/2-77-033, 12/1977). Large Appliance Coatings Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances (EPA-450/2-77-034, 12/1977).
  • Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings (EPA-453/R-07-004, 09/2007).
  • Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners (EPA-450/3-82-009, 09/1982). Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins (EPA-450/3-83-008, 11/1983). Metal Furniture Coating Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings (EPA-453/R-07-005, 09/2007). Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants (EPA-450/3-83-007, 12/1983). Petroleum Refinery Equipment Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment (EPA-450/2-78-036, 06/1978). Pneumatic Rubber Tires Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires (EPA-450/2-78-030, 12/1978). Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds (EPA-450/2-77-025, 10/1977). Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Surface Coating Operations Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating) (61 FR 44050, 08/27/96) and EPA-453/R-94-032, 04/1994. Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products (EPA-450/2-78-029, 12/1978). Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (EPA-450/3-84-015, 12/1984).
  • Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (EPA-450/4-91-031, 08/1993).
  • Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment (EPA-450/3-83-006, 03/1984). Wood Furniture Manufacturing Coating Operations Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations (EPA-453/R-96-007, 04/1996).

    (xi) The following negative declarations were adopted by the District on December 20, 2016 and submitted to EPA on June 7, 2017.

    Negative Declarations for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS CTG source category CTG reference document Can Coating Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks (EPA-450/2-77-008, 05/1977). Flat Wood Paneling Coating Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling (EPA-450/2-78-032, 06/1978). Large Petroleum Dry Cleaning Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners (EPA-450/3-82-009, 09/1982). Negative Declarations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS CTG source category CTG reference document Can Coating Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks (EPA-450/2-77-008, 05/1977). Drum Coating Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003, 09/2008). Flat Wood Paneling Coating Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling (EPA-450/2-78-032, 06/1978). Metal Furniture Coating Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (EPA-450/2-77-032, 12/1977). Pleasure Craft Coating Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003, 09/2008). Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals (EPA-450/2-77-026, 10/1977).
    4. Revise § 52.248 to read as follows:
    § 52.248 Identification of plan—conditional approval.

    (a) The EPA is conditionally approving a California State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on November 13, 2015 updating the motor vehicle emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and coarse particulate matter (PM10) for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the San Joaquin Valley PM10 maintenance area. The conditional approval is based on a commitment from the State to submit a SIP revision that demonstrates full implementation of the contingency provisions of the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation (September 20, 2007). If the State fails to meet its commitment by June 1, 2017, the approval is treated as a disapproval.

    (b) The EPA is conditionally approving portions of the California SIP revisions submitted on January 31, 2007 and October 23, 2015, demonstrating control measures in the Antelope Valley portion of the Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert) nonattainment area implement RACT for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards. The conditional approval is based on a commitment from the state to submit new or revised rules that will correct deficiencies in the following rules for the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District:

    (1) Rule 462, Organic Liquid Loading;

    (2) Rule 1110.2, Emissions from Stationary, Non-road & Portable Internal Combustion Engines;

    (3) Rule 1151, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations; and

    (4) Rule 1171, Solvent Cleaning Operations. If the State fails to meet its commitment by November 9, 2018, the conditional approval is treated as a disapproval.

    [FR Doc. 2017-21375 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0012; FRL-9965-58] Tall Oil Fatty Acids; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of tall oil fatty acids (CAS Reg. No. 61790-12-3) when used as inert ingredients (solvent/carrier) in the following circumstances: In pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest; in pesticides applied in/on animals, and in antimicrobial formulations for food contact surfaces. Spring Trading Company on behalf of Ingevity Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of these exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish maximum permissible levels for residues of tall oil fatty acids that are consistent with the conditions of these exemptions.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 10, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 11, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0012, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0012 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 11, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0012, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17175) (FRL-9959-61), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of pesticide petition (IN-11002) by Spring Trading Company (203 Dogwood Trail, Magnolia, TX 77354) on behalf of Ingevity Corporation (5255 Virginia Avenue, North Charleston, SC 29406). This petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910, 40 CFR 180.930, and 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of tall oil fatty acids (CAS Reg. No. 61790-12-3) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/carrier) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and to raw agricultural commodities after harvest, in pesticides applied in/on animals, or in antimicrobial formulations for food contact surfaces. That document referenced the summary of the petition prepared by Spring Trading Company on behalf of Ingevity Corporation, the petitioner, which are available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A) and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for tall oil fatty acids including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with tall oil fatty acids follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by tall oil fatty acids as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    The acute oral toxicity is low in rats for tall oil fatty acids; the lethal dose (LD50) is >10,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). Tall oil fatty acids are not a dermal sensitizer in the guinea pig maximization test. Acute dermal toxicity (study available with oleic acid) was not observed in guinea pigs. Skin and eye irritation and inhalation studies are not available.

    Tall oil fatty acids do not exhibit toxicity when administered via the diet to rats at 2,500 mg/kg/day for 90 days.

    A two-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats was available for tall oil fatty acids. Fetal susceptibility was not observed. Neither maternal nor developmental adverse effects were observed following oral administration of tall oil fatty acids at doses as high as 5,000 mg/kg/day.

    Carcinogenicity studies with tall oil fatty acids are not available; however, there is no toxicological endpoint of concern up to 5,000 mg/kg/day nor is there a potential for mutagenicity. Therefore, tall oil fatty acids are not expected to be carcinogenic.

    Mutagenicity studies, the Ames test and mammalian gene mutations, are negative for tall fatty acids. Therefore, tall oil fatty acids are not mutagenic.

    Neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies are not available for review; however, evidence of neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity is not observed in the submitted studies.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    The available toxicity studies indicate that tall oil fatty acids have a very low overall toxicity. The NOAELs in a 90-day oral and a reproduction toxicity studies were 5,000 mg/kg/day; well above the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Since no signs of toxicity were observed, even at doses above the limit dose, an endpoint of concern for risk assessment purposes was not identified. Therefore, a qualitative risk assessment was conducted for acute and chronic dietary exposures and short and intermediate dermal and inhalation exposures.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to tall oil fatty acids, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA qualitatively assessed dietary exposures from tall oil fatty acids in food as follows:

    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to tall oil fatty acids can occur following ingestion of foods with residues from treated crops, animals or food contact surfaces. Use on food crops may result in residues in drinking water.

    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    Tall oil fatty acids may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the home. Based on the discussion above, a quantitative residential exposure assessment for tall oil fatty acids was not conducted.

    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    Based on the available data, tall oil fatty acids do not have a toxic mechanism; therefore, section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) does not apply.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on an assessment of tall oil fatty acids, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to residues of tall oil fatty acids will not pose a risk to the U.S. population, including infants and children, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to tall oil fatty acids residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established under for residues of tall oil fatty acids (CAS Reg. No. 61790-12-3) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/carrier) in pesticide formulations as follows: For application to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910; for application to animals under 40 CFR 180.930; and for use in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to for food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils under 40 CFR 180.940(a).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 5, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *    *    *    *    * Tall oil fatty acids (CAS Reg. No. 61790-12-3) Solvent/carrier. *    *    *    *    *
    3. In § 180.930, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.930 Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *    *    *    *    * Tall oil fatty acids (CAS Reg. No. 61790-12-3) Solvent/carrier. *    *    *    *    *
    4. In § 180.940(a), add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.940(a) Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food contact surface sanitizing solutions).

    (a) * * *

    Inert ingredients Limits Uses *    *    *    *    * Tall oil fatty acid (CAS Reg. No. 61790-12-3) Solvent/carrier. *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2017-21787 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0309; FRL-9967-72] Tolfenpyrad; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for residues of tolfenpyrad in or on dry bulb onion and watermelon. This action is in response to EPA's granting of emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on dry bulb onion and watermelon. This regulation establishes maximum permissible levels for residues of tolfenpyrad in or on these commodities. The time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 10, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 11, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0309, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-chemical-safety-and-pollution-prevention-ocspp and select “Test Guidelines for Pesticides and Toxic Substances.”

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0309 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 11, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0309, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.

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

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of tolfenpyrad (4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(p-tolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-carboxamide), including its metabolites and degradates, in or on dry bulb onion at 0.09 parts per million (ppm), and watermelon at 0.7 ppm. These time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any petition from an outside party.

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

    III. Emergency Exemptions for Tolfenpyrad on Dry Bulb Onion and Watermelon, and FFDCA Tolerances

    The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) stated that an emergency situation required the use of tolfenpyrad on dry bulb onions (Allium cepa) to control onion thrips (Thrips tabaci Lindeman) in the Texas counties of Cameron, Dimmitt, Frio, Hidalgo, Maverick, Starr, Uvalde, Willacy and Zavala. According to TDA, this year's exceptionally mild winter and record high heat caused the development of large populations of onion thrips, a principle pest of onions, early in the onion crop cycle. The threshold level for applying pesticides to control thrips in onions is 5 to 25 thrips per plant, and TDA stated that over 100 thrips per plant were observed in Texas' dry bulb onion fields in early March, 2017. TDA stated that multiple applications of registered pesticides were not controlling these extreme population levels which can reduce yields and bulb size by as much as 50%. In addition, the transmission of iris yellow spot virus in onions, exclusively vectored by onion thrips, is a concern, and several onion fields have been observed with positive symptoms. TDA stated that this virus severely affects the shipping quality of onions, and can be more devastating than damage from the thrips themselves. Upon EPA concurrence, TDA allowed the use of tolfenpyrad under the provisions of a crisis exemption beginning on March 17, 2017, and subsequently requested a specific exemption to allow the use of tolfenpyrad in dry bulb onions to continue beyond the 15 days provided by a crisis exemption alone.

    Separately, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDA) stated that an emergency developed due to outbreaks of melon thrips in watermelon fields at unusually high levels, (up to 200 thrips per leaf), which registered pesticides were not controlling. HDA stated that above-average rainfall caused rapid growth of host plants, leading to development of very high levels of melon thrips in areas near watermelon fields. Subsequently, a 6-week drought caused early dry-down of this rainy-season vegetation, prompting massive migrations of melon thrips into neighboring watermelon fields. HDA stated that the melon thrips infestations have caused stunted vines, foliage discoloration, and in some instances have caused such severe damage that the plants no longer produce fruit. The melon aphid also transmits the tomato spotted wilt virus, which causes silver mottle disease in watermelon, further damaging the plants and causing additional yield losses. HDA stated that some watermelon acreage was abandoned due to the high level of damage from melon thrips infestations, and that significant yield and economic losses would occur in the remaining watermelon acreage without the requested use of tolfenpyrad. Upon EPA concurrence, HDA allowed the use of tolfenpyrad under the provisions of a crisis exemption, beginning on May 31, 2017, subsequently requesting a specific exemption to allow the use of tolfenpyrad in watermelon to continue beyond the 15 days provided under a crisis exemption alone.

    After having reviewed the submissions, EPA determined that emergency conditions exist for these States, and that the criteria for approval of the emergency exemptions had been met. Therefore, EPA authorized specific exemptions under FIFRA section 18 for the use of tolfenpyrad on dry bulb onion for control of onion thrips in Texas, and on watermelon for control of melon thrips in Hawaii.

    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption applications, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of tolfenpyrad in or on dry bulb onion and watermelon. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and decided that the necessary tolerances under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemptions in order to address urgent, non-routine situations and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although these time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in or on dry bulb onion or watermelon after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.

    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether tolfenpyrad meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on dry bulb onion and watermelon or whether permanent tolerances for these uses would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these time-limited tolerance decisions serve as bases for registration of tolfenpyrad by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c), nor do these tolerances by themselves serve as the authority for persons in any States other than Texas and Hawaii to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18, absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemptions for tolfenpyrad, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of, and to make a determination on, aggregate exposure expected as a result of these emergency exemptions and the time-limited tolerances for residues of tolfenpyrad on dry bulb onion at 0.09 ppm, and watermelon at 0.7 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the time-limited tolerances follows.

    A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed to humans by exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.

    A summary of the toxicological profile and endpoints for tolfenpyrad used for human health risk assessment is discussed in Table 1 of the final rule published in the Federal Register of January 9, 2014, (79 FR 1599) (FRL-9904-70).

    B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to tolfenpyrad, EPA considered exposures under the time-limited tolerances established by this action as well as all existing tolfenpyrad tolerances in 40 CFR 180.675. EPA assessed dietary exposures from tolfenpyrad in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary exposure is quantified and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure; such effects were identified for tolfenpyrad. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey/What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). For the purposes of this acute exposure assessment, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for those crops on which tolfenpyrad use is registered and proposed.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008 NHANES/WWEIA. For the purposes of this chronic exposure assessment, EPA assumed 100 PCT and incorporated average residue levels from crop field trials for registered and proposed uses of tolfenpyrad.

    iii. Cancer. No evidence of carcinogenicity was observed in cancer studies with mice and rats. For further detail on the results of these studies see “Tolfenpyrad. Human Health Risk Assessment” at https://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0909. Therefore, in accordance with EPA's Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 2005), tolfenpyrad is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and a cancer risk assessment is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for tolfenpyrad in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of tolfenpyrad. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of tolfenpyrad are 26.9 ppb for acute exposure and 12.2 ppb for chronic exposure. These modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Tolfenpyrad is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found tolfenpyrad to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and tolfenpyrad does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that tolfenpyrad does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was observed in developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits or a reproduction toxicity study in rats. However, the developmental immunotoxicity study (DIT) in rats suggests increased qualitative susceptibility in the young since toxicity observed in offspring animals was more pronounced than toxicity seen in maternal animals at the same dose. No evidence of quantitative susceptibility was seen in the study. There is low concern and there are no residual uncertainties regarding the increased qualitative prenatal and/or postnatal susceptibility observed for tolfenpyrad. When the DIT and the reproduction study are considered together, the offspring toxicity in the DIT is comparable in severity to maternal toxicity observed at the same dose in the reproduction study. Since the adverse effects in young occurred at exposure levels that have shown comparable effects in adults, EPA does not consider the DIT persuasive evidence of an increased susceptibility of infants or children to tolfenpyrad. Additionally, the effects observed in the DIT study are well-characterized, a clear NOAEL was identified, and the endpoints chosen for risk assessment are protective of potential offspring effects since a dermal hazard was not identified for tolfenpyrad, inhalation risk assessments are based on a route specific inhalation study, and the POD used for chronic dietary risk assessment is lower than where offspring effects were seen in the DIT study.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for tolfenpyrad is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that tolfenpyrad is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. Although there is possibly increased qualitative susceptibility in the young in the DIT study in rats, there are no residual uncertainties regarding increased susceptibility for tolfenpyrad since, (1) comparable maternal toxicity was observed at the same dose in the reproduction study, (2) the offspring effects observed in the DIT study are well characterized and there is a clear NOAEL for the effects seen, (3) no evidence of quantitative susceptibility was seen in the DIT study and susceptibility was not observed (quantitative or qualitative) in rat or rabbit developmental toxicity or reproduction studies tested at similar doses, (4) the endpoints and PODs selected for risk assessment are protective, and (5) direct non-dietary exposure to children is not anticipated since there are no residential uses for tolfenpyrad. Thus, an additional FQPA safety factor is not necessary to protect infants and children.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to tolfenpyrad in drinking water. Accordingly, these assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by tolfenpyrad.

    D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food, drinking water and relevant residential exposure scenarios. Since there are no residential uses for tolfenpyrad, acute residential exposure is not anticipated and acute aggregate exposure results from dietary exposure to residues in food and drinking water alone. Therefore, acute aggregate risk estimates are equivalent to the acute dietary risk estimates. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to tolfenpyrad will occupy 56% of the aPAD for the general U.S. population. Children 3-5 years old are the highest-exposed population subgroup with an estimated acute dietary exposure of 80% of the aPAD. Typically, EPA has concerns when estimated exposures exceed 100% of the acute or chronic population-adjusted dose (aPAD or cPAD). Acute dietary risk estimates are below EPA's level of concern for all populations.

    2. Chronic risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into account chronic exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water and relevant residential exposure scenarios. Since there are no residential uses for tolfenpyrad, chronic residential exposure is not anticipated and chronic aggregate exposure to tolfenpyrad results from dietary exposure to residues in food and drinking water alone. Therefore, chronic aggregate risk estimates for tolfenpyrad are equivalent to the chronic dietary risk estimates. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to tolfenpyrad from food and water will utilize 32% of the cPAD for the general U.S. population, and 81% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old (the population group receiving the greatest exposure).

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure from food and water (considered to be a background (average) exposure level). A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, tolfenpyrad is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential exposure. Because there is no short-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for tolfenpyrad.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure from food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, tolfenpyrad is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for tolfenpyrad.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, tolfenpyrad is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to tolfenpyrad residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established MRLs for tolfenpyrad residues in dry bulb onion or watermelon.

    VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of tolfenpyrad (4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(p-tolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-carboxamide), including its metabolites and degradates, in or on onion, dry bulb at 0.09 ppm, and watermelon at 0.7 ppm. These tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.675, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 180.675 Tolfenpyrad; tolerances for residues.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances specified in the following table are established for residues of tolfenpyrad, (4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(p-tolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the specified agricultural commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only tolfenpyrad, 4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(p-tolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-carboxamide. The tolerances expire on the dates specified in the table.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Expiration
  • date
  • Onion, dry bulb 0.09 12/31/2020 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 0.70 12/31/19 Watermelon 0.70 12/31/2020
    [FR Doc. 2017-21797 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150121066-5717-02] RIN 0648-XF727 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure of the General category fishery.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS closes the General category fishery for large medium and giant (i.e., measuring 73 inches curved fork length or greater) Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) until the General category reopens on December 1, 2017. This action is being taken to prevent overharvest of the General category October through November 2017 BFT subquota and help ensure reasonable fishing opportunities in the December subquota time period.

    DATES:

    Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, October 5 through November 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    The base quota for the General category is 466.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a “subquota” or portion of the annual General category quota. Although it is called the “January” subquota, the regulations allow the General category fishery under this quota to continue until the subquota is reached or March 31, whichever comes first. The subquotas for each time period are as follows: 24.7 mt for January; 233.3 mt for June through August; 123.7 mt for September; 60.7 mt for October through November; and 24.3 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward within the fishing year, which coincides with the calendar year, from one time period to the next, and is available for use in subsequent time periods. On December 19, 2016, NMFS published an inseason action transferring 16.3 mt of BFT quota from the December 2017 subquota to the January 2017 subquota period, resulting in a subquota of 41 mt for the January 2017 period and a subquota of 8 mt for the December 2017 period (81 FR 91873). For 2017, NMFS also transferred 40 mt from the Reserve to the General category effective March 2, and 156.4 mt from the Reserve to the General category effective September 28, resulting in an adjusted General category quota of 663.1 mt (82 FR 12747, March 7, 2017; 82 FR 46000, October 3, 2017). This transfer restored quota to the October through November and December subquota categories that otherwise would have been used to compensate for overharvests in earlier subquota periods, with the goal of making the subquota categories whole to the extent transferrable quota was available.

    Based on the best available landings information for the General category BFT fishery as well as recent and anticipated catch rates and fishing conditions, NMFS has determined that the General category October through November subquota will be reached by October 5, 2017. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas General and HMS Charter/Headboat categories must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on October 5, 2017. The General category will reopen automatically on December 1, 2017, for the December 2017 subperiod. This action applies to Atlantic tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1). The intent of this closure is to prevent overharvest of the available General category October through November BFT subquota and help ensure reasonable fishing opportunities in the December subquota time period.

    Fishermen may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available atwww.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

    Monitoring and Reporting

    NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustment, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. General and Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov or by using the HMS Catch Reporting App. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register. In addition, fishermen may call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (978) 281-9260, or access hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

    Classification

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

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

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

    Authority:

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

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21723 Filed 10-4-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 161017970-6999-02] RIN 0648-XF722 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; quota transfer.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the State of New Jersey is transferring a portion of its 2017 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of Rhode Island. This quota adjustment is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised commercial quotas for New Jersey and Rhode Island.

    DATES:

    Effective October 4, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the initial 2017 allocations were published on December 22, 2016 (81 FR 93842).

    The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for transferring summer flounder commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i)(A) through (C) in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations.

    New Jersey is transferring 380 lb (172 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to Rhode Island. This transfer was requested to repay landings by a New Jersey-permitted vessel that landed in Rhode Island under a safe harbor agreement.

    The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2017 are now: New Jersey, 946,132 lb (429,158 kg); and Rhode Island, 887,922 lb (402,755 kg); based on the initial quotas published in the 2017 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications and subsequent transfers.

    Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 4, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21739 Filed 10-4-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 194 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 Proposed Rules FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Part 110 [Notice 2017-12] Internet Communication Disclaimers; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 13, 2011, the Federal Election Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) seeking comment on whether to begin a rulemaking to revise its regulations concerning disclaimers on certain internet communications and, if so, on what changes should be made to those rules. On October 18, 2016, the Commission reopened the comment period to receive additional comments in light of legal and technological developments since that document was published. The Commission has decided to again reopen the comment period to receive additional comments in light of developments since that document was published. The Commission is not seeking comment on, nor does it propose changes to, any other rules adopted by the Commission in the Internet Communications rulemaking of 2006.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the ANPRM published October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63567) is reopened. Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    All comments must be in writing. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically via the Commission's Web site at www.fec.gov/netdisclaimers or at http://www.fec.gov/fosers, reference REG 2011-02. Alternatively, commenters may submit comments in paper form, addressed to the Federal Election Commission, Attn.: Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463.

    Each commenter must provide, at a minimum, his or her first name, last name, city, state, and zip code. All properly submitted comments, including attachments, will become part of the public record, and the Commission will make comments available for public viewing on the Commission's Web site and in the Commission's Public Records Office. Accordingly, commenters should not provide in their comments any information that they do not wish to make public, such as a home street address, personal email address, date of birth, phone number, social security number, driver's license number, or any information that is restricted from disclosure, such as trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff, Attorney, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2011, the Commission published in the Federal Register an ANPRM seeking comment on whether and how to revise the rules at 11 CFR 110.11 regarding disclaimers on internet communications.1 Specifically, the Commission was considering whether to modify the disclaimer requirements for certain internet communications, or to provide exceptions thereto, consistent with the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30101-46 (“the Act”). The Commission received seven substantive comments in response to the ANPRM. All but one of the commenters agreed that the Commission should update the disclaimer rules through a rulemaking, though commenters differed on how the Commission should do so.

    1See Internet Communication Disclaimers, 76 FR 63567 (Oct. 13, 2011).

    As discussed in the ANPRM, a “disclaimer” is a statement that must appear on certain communications to identify who paid for it and, where applicable, whether the communication was authorized by a candidate. 52 U.S.C. 30120(a); 11 CFR 110.11. With some exceptions, the Act and Commission regulations require disclaimers for public communications: (1) made by a political committee; (2) that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate; or (3) that solicit a contribution. U.S.C. 30120(a); 11 CFR 110.11(a). While the term “public communication” generally does not include internet communications, it does include “communications placed for a fee on another person's Web site.” 11 CFR 100.26.2 In addition to these internet public communications, “electronic mail of more than 500 substantially similar communications when sent by a political committee . . . and all Internet Web sites of political committees available to the general public” also must have disclaimers. 11 CFR 110.11(a).

    2 The Commission is currently proposing amendments intended to modernize a number of regulations, including 11 CFR 100.26. To review those proposals and other Commission rulemaking documents, visit http://www.fec.gov/fosers, reference REG 2013-01.

    Commission regulations set forth certain exceptions to the general disclaimer requirements. For example, disclaimers are not required for communications placed on “[b]umper stickers, pins, buttons, pens, and similar small items upon which the disclaimer cannot be conveniently printed.” 11 CFR 110.11(f)(1)(i) (the “small items exception”). Nor are disclaimers required for “[s]kywriting, water towers, wearing apparel, or other means of displaying an advertisement of such a nature that the inclusion of a disclaimer would be impracticable.” 11 CFR 110.11(f)(1)(ii) (the “impracticable exception”).

    As discussed in the ANPRM, some internet advertisements are so character-limited that providing all the disclaimer information required by the Act may take up much of the available ad characters. See Advisory Opinion 2010-19 (Google) (describing 95-character search result advertisements); cf. Advisory Opinion Request 2011-09 (Facebook) (describing several categories of advertisements ranging from zero to 160 characters).3 However, the ANPRM noted that technological options may allow for the display of disclaimers when a user “hovers” or “rolls” over the advertisement, or on the landing page to which the user is taken after clicking the advertisement.4

    3 Documents related to Commission advisory opinions are available on the Commission's Web site.

    4See, e.g., Contents of Disclosure Statements. Advertisement Disclosure, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, sec. 18450.4(b)(3)(G)(1) (California small internet ad disclosure rule discussed in ANPRM).

    After publication of the ANPRM, the Commission considered these issues in new factual contexts. See, e.g., Advisory Opinion Request 2013-18 (Revolution Messaging) (asking whether “banner ads” viewed on mobile phones, either in Web site or app, required disclaimers); MUR 6911 (Frankel) (considering whether candidates' and political parties' Twitter profiles and individual tweets required disclaimers).5 Also, after the ANPRM was published, at least one additional state joined California in adopting regulations to address small internet advertisements.6

    5 Documents related to Commission enforcement matters under review (MURs) are available on the Commission's Web site.

    6See Electronic Media, Requirements, Md. Code Regs. 33.13.07.02(D)(2)(b).

    In light of these and other legal and technological developments, the Commission reopened the comment period on October 18, 2016, seeking comments addressing persons' experiences in complying with (and receiving disclosure from) these state rules as well as other disclosure regimes.7 The Commission sought comments that addressed:

    7See Internet Communication Disclaimers; Reopening of Comment Period and Notice of Hearing, 81 FR 71647 (Oct. 18, 2016). In the document, the Commission also indicated it would hold a hearing on February 1, 2017. However, because few commenters expressed interest in the hearing, the Commission postponed it.

    • How campaigns, parties, and other political committees, voters, and others disseminate and receive electoral information via the internet and other technologies, including any data or experiences in purchasing, selling, or distributing small or character-limited advertisements on Web sites, apps, and mobile devices;

    • any challenges in complying with the existing disclaimer rules as applied to internet communications;

    • the technological or other characteristics that might define a “small” internet advertisement;

    • how a disclaimer requirement or exception for “small” internet advertisements might be implemented;

    • the informational benefits of disclaimers on internet communications to assist voters in identifying the source of advertising so they are better “able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being subjected”; 8

    8Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 368 (2010) (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 792 n.32 (1978)).

    • the informational benefits of disclaimers on internet communications, including Web sites and social media pages, to avoid voter confusion and reduce the incidence of solicitations that appear to be for candidates but are actually for non-candidate committees; and

    • the extent to which the Commission's consideration of disclaimer requirements should take into account current or anticipated models of internet advertising.

    The Commission received six comments during the reopened comment period, all but one of which supported updating the disclaimer rules. Commenters, however, differed on whether the Commission should adopt technological modifications to disclaimer requirements for all online advertisements or exempt paid advertisements on social media platforms from the disclaimer requirements.

    Since the close of the latest comment period, the Commission has again considered disclaimer requirements as applied to online communications by American citizens.9 In light of recent developments since the close of the latest comment period, the Commission is interested in receiving further comments on whether and how to revise its rules regarding disclaimers on certain internet communications. The Commission seeks additional comments addressing the bullet points above and any issues discussed in the ANPRM; the Commission is particularly interested in comments addressing advertisements on internet-enabled applications and devices (such as apps, eReaders, and wearable technology). Given the speed at which technological advances are developing, the Commission welcomes comments that address possible regulatory approaches that might minimize the need for serial revisions to the Commission's rules in order to adapt to new or emerging technologies.

    9See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 2017-05 (Great America PAC et al.) (concerning whether committees' Twitter profile pages require disclaimers and how committees may use Twitter handles in disclaimers).

    Dated: October 3, 2017.

    On behalf of the Commission.

    Steven T. Walther, Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21706 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0952; Product Identifier 2017-CE-028-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-10-11 for Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG). This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain propeller front transmission gear wheels having insufficient material strength because of improper heat treatment during manufacturing. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products and to add Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 to the applicability.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 24, 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.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact STEMME AG, Flugplatzstrasse F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 3341 3612-0, fax: +49 (0) 3341 3612-30; Internet: https://www.stemme.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2017-0952; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; 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-2017-0952; Product Identifier 2017-CE-028-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://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We issued AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26, 2017) (“AD 2017-10-11”) to address an unsafe condition on all Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG) equipped with a certain front gearbox, part number 11AG, and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.

    Since we issued AD 2017-10-11, we have type certificated Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 gliders in the United States and have determined those model gliders should also be included in the applicability of AD 2017-10-11. In addition, Stemme AG has issued new service information with procedures for addressing the unsafe condition.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Stemme AG has issued STEMME Service Bulletin Dok. Nr.: P062-980010, Issue: 01, dated June 14, 2017, and STEMME Procedural Specification Dok. Nr.: P320-900060, dated June 14, 2017. In combination, the service information describes procedures for replacing the front gearbox. 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 of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have 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 and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information for this proposed AD allows the owner/operator to do certain maintenance tasks. Also, the service information specifies certain maintenance tasks be done by Stemme AG. However, for this proposed AD, we do not allow the owner/operator to do any maintenance tasks; all maintenance tasks must be done by an appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop. In addition, we do not require any maintenance tasks be done specifically by Stemme AG; any appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop may do the tasks required by this proposed AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    According to the U.S. registry, we have a total of 51 of both glider types registered, but there are still only 14 serial numbers of the part number 11AG front gearbox. Therefore, the most gliders that could be affected remains 14. According to Stemme AG, there are a total of 4 of the affected front gearboxes on both glider types of U.S. registry (2 for each model).

    It will take an estimated 19 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,000 per product.

    Based on these figures, if we consider the costs for all 14 affected gearboxes, then we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $50,610, or $3,615 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26, 2017), and adding the following new AD: Stemme AG: Docket No. FAA-2017-0952; Product Identifier 2017-CE-028-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 24, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26, 2017) (“AD 2017-10-11”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG), all serial numbers, and Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 gliders, all serial numbers, that are:

    (1) Equipped with a front gearbox, part number (P/N) 11AG, with a serial number listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD; and

    (2) are certificated in any category.

    Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD—Affected P/N 11AG (front gearbox) S/Ns

    80058/0814, 80059/0915, 80060/0915, 80061/1115, 80062/1215, 80063/0116, 80064/0416, 80065/0616, 80066/0716, 80067/0916, 80068/1016, 80069/0117, 80070/0217, 80071/0217.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Page 2 of Stemme AG Service Bulletin No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, provides a pictorial of where the serial number of the affected gearboxes are located.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 61: Propellers/Propulsors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain propeller front transmission gear wheels having insufficient material strength because of improper heat treatment during manufacturing. We are issuing this proposed AD to add Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 to the applicability, paragraph (c), of this AD, and to prevent failure of the propeller front transmission gear wheels. This failure could cause loss of power between the engine and the propeller, which could result in reduced control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:

    (1) For Model Stemme S10-VT gliders: Before further flight after June 15, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-10-11), replace the front gearbox following STEMME Procedural Specification Dok. Nr.: P320-900060, dated June 14, 2017, as specified in STEMME Service Bulletin Dok. Nr.: P062-980010, Issue: 01, dated June 14, 2017.

    (2) For Model Stemme S 12 gliders: Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, replace the front gearbox following STEMME Procedural Specification Dok. Nr.: P320-900060, dated June 14, 2017, as specified in STEMME Service Bulletin Dok. Nr.: P062-980010, Issue: 01, dated June 14, 2017.

    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a front gear box listed in table 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD.

    (4) The service information for this AD allows the owner/operator to do certain maintenance tasks. Also, the service information specifies certain maintenance tasks be done by Stemme AG. However, for this AD, we do not allow the owner/operator to do any maintenance tasks; all maintenance tasks must be done by an appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop. In addition, we do not require any maintenance tasks be done specifically by Stemme AG; any appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop may do the tasks required by this AD.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    (i) Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (ii) AMOCs approved for AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26, 2017) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

    (h) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0072-E, dated April 26, 2017, and Stemme AG Service Bulletin No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0952. For service information related to this AD, contact STEMME AG, Flugplatzstrasse F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 3341 3612-0, fax: +49 (0) 3341 3612-30; Internet: https://www.stemme.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 26, 2017. Pat Mullen, Acting Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21226 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 [Docket No. RM18-1-000] Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Act), the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) is proposing a rule for final action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). The Secretary is proposing the Commission exercise its authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to establish just and reasonable rates for wholesale electricity sales. Under the proposal, the Commission will impose rules on Commission-approved independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs) to ensure that certain reliability and resilience attributes of electric generation resources are fully valued. The Secretary is directing the Commission to take final action on this proposal within 60 days of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register or, in the alternative, to issue the rule as an interim final rule immediately, with provision for later modifications after consideration of public comments. The Secretary further directs that any final rule adopting this proposal take effect within 30 days of publication of such final rule in the Federal Register and proposes that each ISO and RTO subject to the rule shall submit a compliance filing within 15 days of the effective date of such final rule.

    DATES:

    The Commission is directed either to take final action by December 11, 2017 or to issue the proposed rule as an interim final rule. Public comment is due either November 24, 2017 or according to a schedule to be published by the Commission.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:

    Email: Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.

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

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronald (R.J.) Colwell, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy (GC-76), Forrestal Building, Room 6D-033, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-9507; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Statutory Background II. Discussion of Proposed Rule A. Affordable, Reliable and Resilient Electricity Is Vital to the Economic and National Security of the United States and Its People B. There Have Been Significant Retirements of Fuel-Secure Generation C. The 2014 Polar Vortex Exposed Problems With the Resiliency of the Electric Grid D. Regulated Wholesale Power Markets Are Not Adequately Pricing Resiliency Attributes of Fuel-Secure Power E. The Preservation of Generation Diversity Will Benefit Consumers F. NERC Warns That Premature Retirements of Fuel-Secure Generation Threaten the Reliability and Resiliency of the Bulk Power System G. The DOE Staff Report Made Clear the Challenges to the Grid and That Resiliency Must Be Addressed H. Congress Is Concerned About the Potential Loss of Valuable Generation Resources I. The FERC Is Cognizant of the Problem and Has the Necessary Information on Which To Act Expeditiously III. Proposal IV. Procedures for Completion of Final Action A. Deadlines B. Comment Procedures C. Compliance Filings V. Statutory and Regulatory Review VI. Information Collection Statement VII. Environmental Analysis VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act IX. Executive Order 12866 X. Document Availability XI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Statutory Background

    Section 403 of the DOE Act authorizes the Secretary of Energy to propose rules for Commission action regarding certain Commission functions, including its electricity rate-related functions under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, and to set reasonable time limits for Commission completion of the proposed action. Section 403(a) provides for the initiation of rulemaking proceedings by either the Secretary or the Commission. In the exercise of this authority, the Commission proposes rules by publishing Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal Register. The Secretary has likewise exercised his section 403 authority by publishing NOPRs in the Federal Register. This authority was first exercised by the Secretary in 1979 by publication of a NOPR (“Transportation Certificates for Natural Gas,” 44 FR 17644, March 22, 1979). The Secretary has subsequently acted under section 403 on several occasions by publication of a NOPR in the Federal Register. By proposing a rule in this manner, the Secretary enables the Commission to proceed directly to the consideration of, and final action on, the proposal and eliminates the need for the Commission to order or publish its own separate rulemaking proposal.

    Independent of the Secretary's action under section 403(a), FERC has full authority to establish the rule set forth in this proposed rule. Specifically, FERC has authority to establish just and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for wholesale electricity sales under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, and FERC has discretion to do so by means of a rulemaking pursuant to section 403(c), which authorizes FERC to use rulemaking procedures to conduct its Federal Power Act functions relating to rates and charges. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. F.E.R.C., 225 F.3d 667, 688 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd 535 U.S. 1 (2002). FERC has on numerous occasions imposed market rules on ISOs and RTOs. See 18 CFR part 35.

    Furthermore, section 403(b) requires that FERC “shall consider and take final action on any proposal made by the Secretary [under subsection (a)] in an expeditious manner in accordance with such reasonable time limits as may be set by the Secretary for the completion of action by the Commission on any such proposal.” The Secretary is therefore authorized to direct the Commission to consider and take final action within the reasonable time limits the Secretary establishes in this proposed rule. Given the extensive record the Commission has already developed on the subject matter of this proposed rule, the time limit for final action provided herein allows adequate time for the Commission to receive and consider public comments.

    II. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The resiliency of the nation's electric grid is threatened by the premature retirements of power plants that can withstand major fuel supply disruptions caused by natural or man-made disasters and, in those critical times, continue to provide electric energy, capacity, and essential grid reliability services. These fuel-secure resources are indispensable for the reliability and resiliency of our electric grid—and therefore indispensable for our economic and national security. It is time for the Commission to issue rules to protect the American people from energy outages expected to result from the loss of this fuel-secure generation capacity.

    A. Affordable, Reliable and Resilient Electricity Is Vital to the Economic and National Security of the United States and Its People

    Ensuring that American families and businesses have access to reliable, resilient and affordable electricity is vital to the economy, national security, and quality of life. From heating homes in the winter to cooling them in the summer, providing lighted streets so people can walk safely at night, powering machines and technology that create jobs, and connecting us through smart phones and the internet—electricity is a key driver of America's economic prosperity and the basic necessities of life. The American economy, government and national defense all depend on electricity. Therefore, ensuring a reliable and resilient electric supply and corresponding supply chain are also vital to national security.

    The sheer size and impact of the electricity market on our economy cannot be overstated. According to the Department of Energy's January 2017 Quadrennial Energy Review (January 2017 QER): In the United States, there are around 7,700 operating power plants that generate electricity from a variety of primary energy sources; 707,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines; more than 1 million rooftop solar installations; 55,800 substations; 6.5 million miles of local distribution lines; and 3,354 distribution utilities delivering electricity to 148.6 million customers. The total amount of money paid by end users for electricity in 2015 was about $400 billion. This drives an $18.6 trillion U.S. gross domestic product and significantly influences global economic activity totaling roughly $80 trillion.1

    1Transforming the Nation's Electricity System: The Second Installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review, January 6, 2017 (January 2017 QER).

    B. There Have Been Significant Retirements of Fuel-Secure Generation

    Market changes are resulting in a significant loss of fuel-secure generation. According to the January 2017 QER: Currently, the changing electricity sector is causing the closure of many coal and nuclear plants in a shift from recent trends. From 2000 through 2009, power plant retirements were dominated by natural gas steam turbines. Over the past 6 years (2010-2015), power plant retirements were dominated by coal plants (37 GW), which accounted for over 52 percent of recently retired power plant capacity. Over the next 5 years (between 2016 and 2020), 34.4 GW of summer capacity is planned to be retired, and 79 percent of this planned retirement capacity are coal and natural gas plants (49 percent and 30 percent, respectively). The next largest set of planned retirements are nuclear plants (15 percent).2

    2 January 2017 QER at 3-73.

    The “Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability” (“DOE Staff Report”) 3 also discusses the large number of fuel-secure plants that have retired or are scheduled to retire:

    3 U.S. Department of Energy, Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability, August 2017 (DOE Staff Report).

    • Between 2002 and 2016, 531 coal generating units representing approximately 59,000 MW of generation capacity retired from the U.S. generation fleet.4

    4 DOE Staff Report at 22.

    • EIA reported that coal-fired power plants made up more than 80 percent of the 18,000 MW of electric generating capacity that retired in 2015.5

    5 DOE Staff Report at 22, citing U.S. Energy Information Administration, Today in Energy, March 8, 2016. More recent EIA data shows an overall larger amount of 2015 generation capacity retirements (25,400 MW), of which coal-fired power plants made up 72%. EIA Monthly Update to the Annual Electric Generator Report, Form EIA-860m, March 2017.

    • It is anticipated that approximately 12,700 MW of coal generation will retire through 2020.6

    6 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Update to the Annual Electric Generator Report, Form EIA-860m, June 2017, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/.

    • Between 2002 and 2016, 4,666 MW of nuclear generating capacity was announced for retirement, or approximately 4.7 percent of the U.S. total.7

    7 DOE Staff Report at 29.

    • Eight reactors representing 7,167 MW of nuclear capacity (7.2 percent of U.S. nuclear capacity and 0.6 percent of total U.S. generating capacity) have announced retirement plans since 2016. This does not include seven reactors that averted early retirement through state action.8

    8 DOE Staff Report at 30.

    C. The 2014 Polar Vortex Exposed Problems With the Resiliency of the Electric Grid

    In early 2014, the Polar Vortex (a band of very cold weather spread across much of the eastern and central United States) created record-high winter peak electric demand for heating and equally high demand for natural gas for residential heating. During the Polar Vortex, PJM Interconnection (PJM) 9 struggled to meet demand for electricity because a significant amount of generation was not available to run. According to the DOE Staff Report, the loss of generation capacity could have been catastrophic, but a number of fuel-secure plants that were scheduled for retirement were called upon to meet the need for electricity: American Electric Power reported that it deployed 89 percent of its coal units scheduled for retirement in 2014 to meet demand during the Polar Vortex, and Southern Company reported using 75 percent of its coal units scheduled for closure. Using these retiring units enabled utilities to meet customer demand during a period when already limited natural gas resources were diverted from electricity production to meet residential heating needs. Once retired, however, these units will not be available for the next unseasonably cold winter.10

    9 PJM Interconnection is the regional transmission organization (“RTO”) serving thirteen states and the District of Columbia.

    10 DOE Staff Report, at 98 (internal citations omitted).

    Likewise, the DOE Staff Report notes that, overall, nuclear generators performed extremely well during the Polar Vortex, with an average capacity factor of 95 percent.11

    11 DOE Staff Report, at 95 (internal citations omitted).

    Sixty-five million people within the PJM footprint could have been affected if these units were not available. The 2014 Polar Vortex was a warning that the current and scheduled retirements of fuel-secure plants could threaten the reliability and resiliency of the electric grid.12

    12 DOE Staff Report, at 98-99, 118.

    D. Regulated Wholesale Power Markets Are Not Adequately Pricing Resiliency Attributes of Fuel-Secure Power

    There is a growing recognition that organized markets do not necessarily pay generators for all the attributes that they provide to the grid, including resiliency. Because wholesale pricing in those markets does not adequately consider or accurately value those benefits, fuel-secure generation resources are often not compensated for those benefits.

    The January 2017 QER summarizes the problem of how regulated wholesale markets are not adequately pricing resiliency attributes of fuel-secure generation: Reliability investments are typically incorporated into ratemaking processes for all electric utilities. Supplementary investments for recovery from outage events also are handled through established ratemaking processes. Resilience requirements tend to be valued as contributions to reliability and incorporated as part of ratemaking processes. These processes are more easily executed in structures that are traditional end-to-end, vertically integrated electricity delivery services; other market structures complicate reliability and resilience investment decision-making. Short-run markets may not provide adequate price signals to ensure long-term investments in appropriately configured capacity. Also, resource valuations tend not to incorporate superordinate network and/or social values such as enhancing resilience into resource or . . . investment decision making. The increased importance of system resilience to overall grid reliability may require adjustments to market mechanisms that enable better valuation. 13

    13 January 2017 QER, at 4-41 (emphasis added).

    A recent study by IHS Markit amplifies the same point: “the increasing cost of ensuring power system resilience is exposing the problem that some current wholesale market price formation rules do not fully compensate generating resources for providing the desired power system supply resiliency.” 14

    14 IHS Markit, “Ensuring Resilient and Efficient Electricity Generation: The Value of the current diverse US power supply portfolio” at 8.

    E. The Preservation of Generation Diversity Will Benefit Consumers

    The IHS Markit study also concludes that preservation of generation diversity provided by fuel-secure resources benefits consumers: “The current diversified US electric supply portfolio lowers the cost of electricity production by about $114 billion per year and lowers the average retail price of electricity by 27%” compared with a “less efficient diversity case” involving “no meaningful contributions from coal or nuclear resources.” 15

    15 Id. at 4-5.

    F. NERC Warns That Premature Retirements of Fuel-Secure Generation Threaten the Reliability and Resiliency of the Bulk Power System

    The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) (the FERC-designated Electric Reliability Organization), whose mission is to assure the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America, states: The North American electric power system is undergoing a rapid and significant transformation with ongoing retirements of fossil-fired and nuclear capacity, as well as growth in natural gas, wind, and solar resources. This shift is caused by several drivers, such as federal, state, and provincial policies, low natural gas prices, electricity market forces, and integration of both distributed and utility-scale renewable resources. The changing resource mix is altering the operating characteristics of the bulk power system (BPS). These changing characteristics must be well understood and properly managed in order to assure continued reliability and ensure resiliency. 16

    16 NERC Letter to Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, May 9, 2017, Attachment “Synopsis of NERC Reliability Assessments” (Synopsis) at 1.

    Specifically, according to NERC, “Coal-fired and nuclear generation have the added benefits of high availability rate, low forced outages, and secured on-site fuel. Many months of on-site fuel allow these units to be operated in a manner independent of supply chain disruptions.” 17

    17 NERC, Synopsis at 2.

    As a consequence, NERC warns, “Premature retirements of fuel secure baseload generating stations reduces resilience to fuel supply disruptions.” 18

    18 NERC, Synopsis at 3.

    G. The DOE Staff Report Made Clear the Challenges to the Grid and That Resiliency Must Be Addressed

    The DOE Staff Report confirms these observations and exposes the potential challenges and threats to the reliability and resiliency of the electric grid, as well as the economic hardship faced by some of the most resilient types of generation. Among other things, the DOE Staff Report warns that premature retirements of fuel-secure resources impose serious risks: Ultimately, the continued closure of traditional baseload power plants calls for a comprehensive strategy for long-term reliability and resilience. States and regions are accepting increased risks that could affect the future reliability and resilience of electricity delivery for consumers in their regions. Hydropower, nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plants provide ERS [(“essential reliability services”)] and fuel assurance critical to system resilience. A continual comprehensive regional and national review is needed to determine how a portfolio of domestic energy resources can be developed to ensure grid reliability and resilience.19

    19 “Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability,” U.S. Department of Energy, August 2017 at 14 (emphasis added).

    The DOE Staff Report also recognizes that “system fuel supply chain disruptions can impact many generators during a single widespread fuel shortage event,” and that “[n]uclear and coal plants typically have advantages associated with onsite fuel storage[.]” 20 In light of these facts, the DOE Staff Report calls for prompt action: Markets need further study and reform to address future services essential to grid reliability and resilience. System operators are working toward recognizing, defining, and compensating for resource attributes that enhance reliability and resilience (on both the supply and demand side). However, further efforts should reflect the urgent need for clear definitions of reliability- and resilience-enhancing attributes and should quickly establish the market means to value or the regulatory means to provide them.21

    20 DOE Staff Report, at 91. For example, “coal plants . . . maintain onsite coal stockpiles to accommodate both normal variance in deliveries and the possibility of a major supply disruption. Coal stockpiles have recently been slightly smaller than historical averages, while days of burn have increased slightly relative to historic averages from the 70-80 range to the 85-100-day range.” Id., at 95.

    21Id., at 10 (emphasis added).

    The DOE Staff Report's first recommendation for protecting the resiliency of the electric grid is to correct distortions in price formation in the organized markets: FERC should expedite its efforts with states, RTO/ISOs, and other stakeholders to improve energy price formation in centrally-organized wholesale electricity markets. After several years of fact finding and technical conferences, the record now supports energy price formation reform, such as the proposals laid out by PJM and others.22

    22Id., at 126 (internal citations omitted).

    H. Congress Is Concerned About the Potential Loss of Valuable Generation Resources

    In July 2015, the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, sent correspondence to the Commission about challenges in the Commission-approved organized electricity markets.23 The chairmen expressed their concern that “[v]aluable baseload power plants in these markets, including reliable nuclear and coal-[fired] plants, are facing premature retirement.” 24

    23 Letter from Fred Upton, Lisa Murkowski, and Ed Whitfield, U.S. Congress, to Norman Bay, Chairman, FERC (July 8, 2015).

    24Id.

    More specifically, the Chairmen's letter stated: “There are growing indications that owners and operators of major baseload power plants are facing imminent decisions regarding their continued economic viability” 25 and “broad scale premature retirements of otherwise performing baseload units because of market rules—rather than market forces—would represent failure of regulation.” 26 The letter made clear that electricity market prices for energy and capacity should reflect the “true marginal cost of supply, promote necessary investment, and produce meaningful price signals that clearly indicate where new supply and investment are needed.27

    25Id.

    26Id.

    27Id.

    I. The FERC Is Cognizant of the Problem and Has the Necessary Information on Which To Act Expeditiously

    Over the past several years, the Commission has developed an extensive record on price formation in the Commission-approved ISOs and RTOs. The Commission has recognized that there are deficiencies in the way the regulated wholesale power markets price power (i.e., energy, capacity, and ancillary services) and that these deficiencies are undermining reliability and resiliency.

    Beginning in June 2013, the Commission recognized the changing mix of generation resources, determined that existing capacity markets were not providing a sufficiently reliable supply of electricity, predicted the loss of fuel-secure generation, and sought input from the public through proceedings on price formation in the organized markets. In a 2013 technical conference, FERC explained: The purpose of the technical conference is to consider how current centralized capacity market rules and structures are supporting the procurement and retention of resources necessary to meet future reliability and operational needs. Since their establishment, centralized capacity markets have continued to evolve. Meanwhile, the mix of resources is also evolving in response to changing market conditions, including low natural gas prices, state and federal policies encouraging the entry of renewable resources and other specific technologies, and the retirement of aging generation resources. This changing resource mix may result in future reliability and operational needs that are different than those of the past.28

    28 FERC, Centralized Capacity Markets in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, Docket No. AD13-7-000, p. 1.

    In December 2014, PJM requested that the Commission issue an order approving PJM's revisions to its capacity market rules to require resources participating in the capacity market to honor contractual commitments to deliver electricity at any time of the year.29 The Commission determined that the existing capacity market was not providing a sufficiently reliable supply of electricity and, to remedy this urgent shortfall, accepted PJM's proposed market rule changes. FERC's order was recently upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Advanced Energy Management Alliance v. FERC, D.C. Cir. (June 30, 2017).

    29 151 FERC ¶ 61,208, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order on Proposed Tariff Revisions (2015); rehearing denied, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order on Rehearing and Compliance, 155 FERC ¶ 61,157 (2016).

    A year after its initial 2013 proceeding, the Commission initiated a proceeding in June 2014, entitled “Price Formation in Energy and Ancillary Services Markets in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators” (Price Formation Proceeding) to evaluate issues regarding price formation in the energy and ancillary services markets operated by RTOs and ISOs.30 In a December 2014 staff analysis for this proceeding, the FERC Staff observes that “[a]ll RTOs and ISOs have identified a class of reliability and operational issues that are incorporated into the day-ahead and real-time market processes but which are not reflected in day-ahead and real-time energy and ancillary services prices.” 31

    30Price Formation in Energy and Ancillary Services Markets in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, Docket No. AD14-14-000, June 2014.

    31Staff Analysis of Operator‐Initiated Commitments in RTO and ISO Markets, Price Formation in Organized Wholesale Electricity Markets, [Docket No. AD14-14-000], December 2014 at 5.

    The Price Formation Proceeding resulted in a number of additional proceedings and rulemakings, some of which are described below:

    • In November 2016, under Order No. 825, Settlement Intervals and Shortage Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, the Commission directed reforms to settlement intervals and shortage pricing to more accurately compensate resources based on the value they provide the system.32

    32 155 FERC ¶ 61,276; 18 CFR part 35 [Docket No. RM15-24-000, Order No. 825] Settlement Intervals and Shortage Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (Issued June 16, 2016).

    • In November 2016, pursuant to a NOPR entitled Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, the Commission proposed a rule to require all newly interconnecting large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install and enable primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection.33

    33 157 FERC ¶ 61,122, Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (November 17, 2016).

    • In December 2016, under Order 831, Offer Caps in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, the Commission raised existing caps on energy market offers and allowed those higher-price offers to set market clearing prices.34

    34 157 FERC ¶ 61,115, 18 CFR part 35 [Docket No. RM16-5-000; Order No. 831] Offer Caps in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (November 17, 2016).

    • In December 2016, pursuant to a NOPR entitled Fast-Start Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, the Commission proposed revising its regulations to require RTOs and ISOs to incorporate market rules that properly price fast-start resources.35 As stated in the NOPR, the proposed Fast-Start Pricing “should lead to prices that more transparently reflect the marginal cost of serving load, which will reduce uplift costs and thereby improve price signals to support efficient investments.” 36

    35 157 FERC ¶ 61,213, 18 CFR part 35 [Docket No. RM18-1-000] Fast-Start Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (December 15, 2016).

    36 157 FERC ¶ 61,213, 18 CFR part 35 [Docket No. RM18-1-000] Fast-Start Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (December 15, 2016), at 1.

    • In January 2017, the Commission issued a NOPR entitled Uplift Cost Allocation and Transparency in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators. 37 Among other things, this proposed rule would require that “each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) that currently allocates the costs of real-time uplift due to deviations should allocate such real-time uplift costs only to those market participants whose transactions are reasonably expected to have caused the real-time uplift costs.” 38 This NOPR establishes that the goals of the price formation in the proceeding are to:

    37 158 FERC ¶ 61,047 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 18 CFR part 35 [Docket No. RM17-2-000] Uplift Cost Allocation and Transparency in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (January 19, 2017).

    38Id. at 1.

    (1) Maximize market surplus for consumers and suppliers;

    (2) Provide correct incentives for market participants to follow commitment and dispatch instructions, make efficient investments in facilities and equipment, and maintain reliability;

    (3) Provide transparency so that market participants understand how prices reflect the actual marginal cost of serving load and the operational constraints of reliably operating the system; and

    (4) Ensure that all suppliers have an opportunity to recover their costs.39

    39 158 FERC ¶ 61,047 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 18 CFR part 35 [Docket No. RM17-2-000] Uplift Cost Allocation and Transparency in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (January 19, 2017) at 5, para 6.

    Through these proceedings, the Commission has developed an extensive record on price formation in the Commission approved ISOs and RTOs. Nevertheless, the fundamental challenge of maintaining a resilient electric grid has not been sufficiently addressed by the Commission or the ISOs and RTOs. The continued loss of fuel-secure generation must be stopped. These generation resources are necessary to maintain the resiliency of the electric grid. FERC must adopt rules requiring the Commission-approved ISOs and RTOs to reduce the chronic distortion of the markets that is threatening the resilience of the Nation's electricity system.

    III. Proposal

    In light of these threats to grid reliability and resilience, it is the Commission's immediate responsibility to take action to ensure that the reliability and resiliency attributes of generation with on-site fuel supplies are fully valued and in particular to exercise its authority to develop new market rules that will achieve this urgent objective.

    The recent Polar Vortex, as well as the devastation from Superstorm Sandy and Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, reinforces the urgency that the Commission must act now. Moreover, the Commission should take action before the winter heating season begins so as to prevent the potential failure of the grid from the loss of fuel-secure generation—as almost happened during the 2014 Polar Vortex.

    As outlined, the Commission has developed a vast record of comments, hearings, and technical conferences on price formation matters, but has not done enough to address the crisis at hand. Immediate action is necessary to ensure fair compensation in order to stop the imminent loss of generators with on-site fuel supplies, and thereby preserve the benefits of generation diversity and avoid the severe consequences that additional shut-downs would have on the electric grid.

    Over the past few years, the Commission has been considering various aspects of accurate price formation within Commission-approved organized markets in its ongoing price formation docket. Throughout these proceedings the Commission has declared that a key goal of price formation is to “ensure that all suppliers have an opportunity to recover their costs.” 40 The Commission has conducted technical conferences, sought and received significant stakeholder and public input, and issued and approved several market rule changes to accomplish these goals.

    40 FERC's Price Formation in Energy and Ancillary Services Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators; Docket No. AD14-14-000; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Workshop Comments (January 16, 2015), Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment at 1.

    Pursuant to the Secretary's authority under section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7173), the Secretary is directing the Commission to exercise its authority under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act to issue a final rule requiring its organized markets to develop and implement market rules that accurately price generation resources necessary to maintain the reliability and resiliency of our Nation's bulk power system.

    The proposed rule allows for the recovery of costs of fuel-secure generation units frequently relied upon to make our grid reliable and resilient. Such resources provide reliable capacity, resilient generation, frequency and voltage support, on-site fuel inventory—in addition to providing power for our basic needs, quality of life, and robust economy. The rule allows the full recovery of costs of certain eligible units physically located within the Commission-approved organized markets. Eligible units must also be able to provide essential energy and ancillary reliability services and have a 90-day fuel supply on site in the event of supply disruptions caused by emergencies, extreme weather, or natural or man-made disasters. These resources must be compliant with all applicable environmental regulations and are not subject to cost-of-service rate regulation by any State or local authority. The rule requires the organized markets to establish just and reasonable rate tariffs for the recovery of costs and a fair rate of return.

    IV. Procedures for Completion of Final Action A. Deadlines

    Pursuant to section 403(b) of the DOE Act, the Secretary is requiring the Commission to consider and take final action on the proposed rule herein within 60 days from the date of the publication of this NOPR in the Federal Register. As an alternative, the Secretary urges the Commission to issue the rule proposed herein as an interim final rule, effective immediately, with provision for later modifications after consideration of public comments. The Secretary further directs that any final rule adopting this proposal take effect within 30 days of publication of such final rule in the Federal Register.

    B. Comment Procedures

    To ensure that the Commission completes final action on this proposed rule within the deadline provided, it will be necessary to provide for the solicitation and review of public comments prior to the Commission's final action. To facilitate such comment process, the Commission is invited to issue a notice providing for such process within two business days of the publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register. If the Commission does not do so, the following comment process will take effect:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this NOPR to be adopted. Comments are due November 24, 2017. Comments must refer to Commission Docket No. RM18-1-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

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

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

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

    C. Compliance Filings

    The Secretary further proposes that any final rule issued by the Commission pursuant to this NOPR shall provide that each Commission-approved RTO and ISO shall submit a compliance filing, including a revised tariff pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, within 15 days of the effective date of the final rule to demonstrate that it meets the proposed requirements set forth in any Final Rule. This compliance deadline is for each RTO and ISO to submit proposed tariff changes or otherwise demonstrate compliance with any Final Rule. Implementing the reforms required by any Final Rule in this proceeding may be a complex endeavor. However, implementation of these reforms is important to ensure rates remain just and reasonable. Therefore, it is proposed that tariff changes filed in response to a Final Rule in this proceeding must become effective no more than 15 days after compliance filings are due.

    To the extent that any RTO or ISO believes that it already complies with the reforms proposed in this NOPR, the RTO or ISO would be required to demonstrate how it complies in the compliance filing required 15 days after the effective date of any Final Rule in this proceeding. To the extent that any RTO or ISO seeks to argue on compliance that its existing market rules are consistent with or superior to the reforms adopted in any Final Rule, the Commission has the ability entertain such arguments at that time.41

    41 See, e.g., Order No. 825, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,384 at P 72; Demand Response Compensation in Organized Wholesale Energy Markets, Order No. 745, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,322, at P 4 & n.7, order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 745-A, 137 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2011), reh'g denied, Order No. 745-B, 138 FERC ¶ 61,148 (2012), vacated sub nom. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n v. FERC, 753 F.3d 216 (D.C. Cir. 2014), rev'd & remanded sub nom. FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n, 136 S. Ct. 760 (2016).

    V. Statutory and Regulatory Review

    Section 403(a) of the DOE Act authorizes the Secretary of Energy to propose rules with respect to any function within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Section 403(b) of that Act provides that the Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such proposals. Accordingly, although the proposal is that of the Secretary of Energy, the Commission is the agency which will take final action on this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the Commission is the appropriate agency to comply with the statutory, regulatory or Executive Order requirements which arise in connection with this rulemaking. To the extent a statute, regulation, or Executive Order requires action before the issuance of a final rule, the Commission should take such action in sufficient time to permit adoption of a final rule within the deadline for final action set forth above.

    To the extent that a NOPR—in the event the Commission were to issue one—would include certain information, included below are the following:

    VI. Information Collection Statement

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 42 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB regulations 43 require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of an agency rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

    42 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

    43 5 CFR 1320.

    Similar to other recently issued rules in its price formation docket, the reforms proposed in this NOPR would amend the Commission's regulations to improve the operation of organized wholesale electric power markets operated by RTOs and ISOs. The reforms proposed in this NOPR would require each RTO and ISO to implement market rules that meet certain requirements for pricing resiliency resources. The reforms proposed in this NOPR would require one-time filings of tariffs with the Commission and potential software upgrades to implement the reforms proposed in this NOPR. DOE anticipates the reforms proposed in this NOPR, once implemented, would not significantly change currently existing burdens on an ongoing basis. With regard to those RTOs and ISOs that believe that they already comply with the reforms proposed in this NOPR, they could demonstrate their compliance in the compliance filing required 15 days after the effective date of any Final Rule in this proceeding. The Commission will submit the proposed reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act.44

    44 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).

    While the DOE expects the adoption of the reforms proposed in this NOPR to provide significant benefits, the DOE understands implementation can be a complex endeavor. Comments are sought on the accuracy of provided burden and cost estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondents' burdens, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, detailed comments are sought on the potential cost and time necessary to implement aspects of the reforms proposed in this NOPR, including (1) hardware, software, and business processes changes; and (2) processes for RTOs/ISOs to vet proposed changes amongst their stakeholders.

    Burden Estimate:45 The DOE believes that the burden estimates below are representative of the average burden on respondents, including necessary communications with stakeholders. The estimated burden and cost for the requirements contained in this NOPR follow.46

    45 Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a federal agency, including: “. . . (ii) Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information; (iii) Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information; (iv) Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information . . . .” 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) (2016). The time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities (e.g., in compiling and maintaining business records) will be excluded from the “burden” if the agency demonstrates that the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and customary.

    46 This estimate is based on the Commission's estimate used by the Commission in 157 FERC ¶ 61,213, 18 CFR part 35 [Docket No. RM18-1-000] Fast-Start Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (December 15, 2016)]. For this information collection, the Commission staff estimates that industry is similarly situated in terms of hourly cost (wages plus benefits). Based on the Commission's average cost (wages plus benefits) for 2016, the Commission is using $74.50/hour.

    Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total number of responses Average burden hours and cost per
  • response
  • Total annual burden hours and total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Tariff filing costs 6 1 6 80 hours, $5,920 480 hours, $35,520 Implementation costs 6 1 6 3,853 hours, $285,122 23,118 hours, $1,710,732 Total (one-time in Year 1) 3,933 hours, $291,042 23,598 hours, $1,746,252 291,042

    Cost to Comply: The DOE has projected the total cost of compliance, all within six months of a Final Rule plus initial implementation, to be $1,746,252. After Year 1, the reforms proposed in this NOPR, once implemented, would not significantly change existing burdens on an ongoing basis.

    Title: PRA approval for this collection of information will be obtained by FERC.

    Action: Proposed revisions to an information collection.

    OMB Control No.: [TBD].

    Respondents for this Rulemaking: RTOs and ISOs.

    Frequency of Information: One-time during year one.

    Necessity of Information: The DOE proposes this rule to improve competitive wholesale electric markets in the RTO and ISO regions.

    Internal Review: The DOE has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the energy industry. This estimate is based on the Commission's estimate in the NOPR for “Fast-Start Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators” 47 and DOE believes that the NOPR is similar and would impose similar burden associated with the information collection requirements.

    47 157 FERC ¶ 61,213, 18 CFR part 35 [Docket No. RM18-1-000], Fast-Start Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (December 15, 2016).

    Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Attention: Office of the Executive Director, email: [email protected], Phone: (202) 502-6608, fax: (202) 273-0873. Comments on the collection of information and the associated burden estimate in the proposed rule should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission], at the following email address: [email protected] Please refer to Docket No.: RM18-1-000 in your submission.

    VII. Environmental Analysis

    Though the Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment,48 the Commission has previously concluded 49 that neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required for a NOPR under section 380.4(a)(15) of the Commission's regulations, which provides a categorical exemption for approval of actions under sections 205 and 206 of the FPA relating to the filing of schedules containing all rates and charges for the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, plus the classification, practices, contracts and regulations that affect rates, charges, classifications, and services.50 This NOPR would require an exercise of the Commission's authority under sections 205 and 206 of the FPA.

    48 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    49 157 FERC ¶ 61,213, 18 CFR part 35 [Docket No. RM18-1-000] Fast-Start Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (December 15, 2016)] at para. 73.

    50 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15).

    VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 51 generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It only requires consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to small entities and an agency explanation of why alternatives were rejected. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.52 These standards are provided on the SBA Web site.53

    51 5 U.S.C. 601-12.

    52 13 CFR 121.101.

    53 U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes (effective Feb. 26, 2016), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.

    The SBA classifies an entity as an electric utility if it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for sale. Under this definition, the six RTOs/ISOs are considered electric utilities, specifically focused on electric bulk power and control. The size criterion for a small electric utility is 500 or fewer employees.54 Since every RTO/ISO has more than 500 employees, none are considered small entities. Furthermore, because of their pivotal roles in wholesale electric power markets in their regions, none of the RTOs/ISOs meet the last criterion of the two-part RFA definition of a small entity: “not dominant in its field of operation.” 55 As a result, we certify that the reforms required by this NOPR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    54 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22, Utilities).

    55 The RFA definition of “small entity” refers to the definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a “small business concern” as a business that is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 define the threshold for a small Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control entity (NAICS code 221121) to be 500 employees. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (citing to section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632).

    IX. Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866. As a result this rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    X. Document Availability

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

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

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

    XI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, electric utilities, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 29, 2017. Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes that FERC amend part 35, chapter I of title 18, subchapter B, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 35—FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS 1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

    2. Section 35.28 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(10) to read as follows:
    § 35.28 Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

    (g) * * *

    (10) Pricing eligible grid reliability and resiliency resources.

    (i) Definition of eligible grid reliability and resiliency resources. An eligible grid reliability and resiliency resource is any resource that:

    (A) Is an electric generation resource physically located within a Commission-approved independent system operator or regional transmission organization;

    (B) Is able to provide essential energy and ancillary reliability services, including but not limited to voltage support, frequency services, operating reserves, and reactive power;

    (C) Has a 90-day fuel supply on site enabling it to operate during an emergency, extreme weather conditions, or a natural or man-made disaster;

    (D) Is compliant with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws, rules, and regulations; and

    (E) Is not subject to cost of service rate regulation by any state or local regulatory authority.

    (ii) Scope of application. The requirements of this rule shall apply to Commission-approved independent system operators or regional transmission organizations with energy and capacity markets and a tariff that contains a day-ahead and a real-time market or the functional equivalent. The application of this rule must be consistent between the day-ahead and real-time markets.

    (iii) Reliability and resiliency rate. (A) Each Commission-approved independent system operator or regional transmission organization shall establish a tariff that provides a just and reasonable rate for the—

    (1) Purchase of electric energy from an eligible reliability and resiliency resource; and

    (2) recovery of costs and a return on equity for such resource dispatched during grid operations.

    (B) The just and reasonable rate shall include pricing to ensure that each eligible resource is fully compensated for the benefits and services it provides to grid operations, including reliability, resiliency and on-site fuel-assurance, and that each eligible resource recovers its fully allocated costs and a fair return on equity.

    (iv) Reliability and resiliency costs. Compensable costs shall include, but not be limited to, operating and fuel expenses, costs of capital and debt, and a fair return on equity and investment.

    [FR Doc. 2017-21396 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0750] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Pequonnock River, Bridgeport, CT AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Metro-North Peck Bridge across the Pequonnock River, mile 0.3, at Bridgeport, Connecticut. The owner of the bridge, Metro-North Railroad, has submitted a request that vessels seeking an opening of the draw submit a minimum of four hours of advance notice. It is expected this change to the regulations will better serve the needs of the public, particularly commuters and commercial interests utilizing the Northeast Corridor rail spur, while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0750 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. James Moore, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone 212-514-4334, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Metro-North Peck Bridge, mile 0.3, across the Pequonnock River at Bridgeport, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance of 26 feet at Mean High Water and 32 feet at Mean Low Water when the span is in the closed position. Vertical clearance is 65 feet when the draw is open. Horizontal clearance is 105 feet. Waterway users include recreational and a limited number of small commercial vessels.

    The existing drawbridge regulation in 33 CFR 117.219(b) has been in effect since September 13, 2010. The owner of the bridge, Metro-North Railroad, requested a change to the drawbridge operating regulations in order to better facilitate the orderly flow of rail traffic while still satisfying the reasonable needs of navigation. Specifically, Metro-North Railroad seeks to modify the “open on signal” requirement associated with the existing regulation. Under the proposed rule, mariners would be expected to provide a minimum four hours advance notice if an opening is necessary. Additionally, the bridge owner requested to extend the allowable delay to an opening when a train is approaching the bridge. The bridge is a component of the Northeast Corridor, which supports Metro-North, Amtrak and freight rail service. Of note, the bridge has not received any requests for an opening in the past four years; meanwhile, approximately 211 Metro-North commuter trains alone proceed across the bridge daily. It is reasoned that rail traffic will be able to proceed in a more expeditious and predictable manner if the draw of the bridge is not required to open on signal.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Bridge logs submitted for review by Metro North Railroad substantiate the bulk of bridge openings since 2015 have been undertaken for no more than test purposes. Over the course of the past decade the Pequonnock River has seen a marked decrease in the volume of commercial vessel traffic utilizing the waterway. There are presently no businesses located upstream of the bridge hosting either vessels and/or barges that would require an opening of the draw as a routine matter. Nor does it appear likely that planned development of the City of Bridgeport's waterfront will involve ventures requiring moorings for commercial vessels. Based on this evidence as well as discussion with the bridge owner, the Coast Guard proposes to permanently change the drawbridge operating regulation 33 CFR 117.219(b).

    The proposed rule at 33 CFR 117.219(b) would allow the Metro-North Peck Bridge to open in the following manner: “The draw of the Metro-North Peck Bridge at mile 0.3, at Bridgeport, shall operate as follows: The draw shall open on signal between 5:45 a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least four hours advance notice is given; except that, from 5:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists. From 9 p.m. to 5:45 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least an eight hour notice is given. A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 15 minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered the drawbridge block. Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the telephone number posted at the bridge.”

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    The Coast Guard believes this rule is not a significant regulatory action. Mariners have not requested an opening of the draw for passage of a vessel within the past four years. Revision of the present regulation will allow for more efficient and economical operation of the span while still serving the reasonable needs of navigation based on present waterway usage trends. The minimum 26 feet of vertical clearance at mean high water when the bridge is in the closed position is sufficient to allow vessels utilizing the Pequonnock River to safety and expeditiously pass through the draw without opening.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    For the reasons states and Sections III and IV above, this proposed rule will not pose a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise § 117.219(b) to read as follows:
    § 117.219 Pequonnock River.

    (b) The draw of the Metro-North Peck Bridge at mile 0.3, at Bridgeport, shall operate as follows:

    (1) The draw shall open on signal between 5:45 a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least four hours advance notice is given; except that, from 5:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.

    (2) From 9 p.m. to 5:45 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least an eight hour notice is given.

    (3) A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 15 minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered the drawbridge block.

    (4) Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the telephone number posted at the bridge.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. S.D. Poulin, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21773 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2017-13; Order No. 4141] Periodic Reporting AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal Nine). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: November 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Proposal Nine III. Notice and Comment IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On September 29, 2017, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports and compliance determinations.1 The Petition identifies the proposed analytical method changes filed in this docket as Proposal Nine.

    1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Nine), September 29, 2017 (Petition).

    II. Proposal Nine

    Background. The Postal Service proposes to change the current City Carrier Cost System (CCCS) methodology for estimating Delivery Point Sequence (DPS) volume proportions. Petition, Proposal Nine at 1. Presently, the Postal Service collects similar mail characteristic data, such as class and product data, for two different systems: CCCS and Origin-Destination Information System—Revenue, Pieces, and Weight (ODIS-RPW). Id. at 1-2. CCCS data are used primarily to distribute costs to products delivered by city letter routes. ODIS-RPW data are used to estimate volume and revenue.

    Currently, the Postal Service collects CCCS mail characteristics data manually. See id. at 3. In contrast, the Postal Service collects ODIS-RPW mail characteristics data from digitally captured images of letter and card shaped mail.2 The Postal Service states that the ODIS-RPW digital sampling method includes approximately 93 percent of CCCS sampled city letter routes. Petition, Proposal Nine at 2.

    2Id. at 2; see Docket No. RM2015-11, Order No. 2739, Order on Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposal Three), September 30, 2015.

    Proposal. The Postal Service proposes a methodology change to CCCS data collection procedures for Delivery Point Sequenced (DPS) mail. Id. at 1. The Postal Service seeks to use the ODIS-RPW digital data to enhance CCCS data for DPS mail destined for delivery by city letter routes. Id. at 2. The Postal Service explains that the proposal would eliminate the need to manually sample 93 percent of DPS mail for CCCS data collection purposes. Id.; see id. at 3. The Postal Service states that it would continue to manually sample mailpieces destined for city letter routes not included in ODIS-RPW's digital data collection, approximately seven percent of city letter routes. Id. at 3.

    Rationale and impact. The Postal Service states that the proposal would enhance the CCCS estimation of delivered DPS volumes. Id. The Postal Service explains that the “automated, systematic method of collecting images of DPS letters and cards” would reduce the risk of undetected sampling errors. Id. Additionally, the Postal Service notes that data collectors and their supervisors are able to review and analyze the ODIS-RPW data because the system retains the data for 30 days. Id. at 3-4. The Postal Service also explains that the proposal would increase the number of DPS sampled mailpieces by approximately 400 percent and the number of CCCS tests by approximately 300 percent. Id. at 4.

    The Postal Service discusses the likely effects of the proposed methodology change on product volume distribution and unit costs. Id. at 4-5. Based on these estimates, the Postal Service indicates minor differences in product volume distribution between the current and proposed CCCS methodologies. Id. at 4. These estimates also indicate that using ODIS-RPW digital data for DPS mail destined for city letter routes would result in very small estimated changes in unit costs or would leave unit costs unaffected. Id. at 4-5.

    III. Notice and Comment

    The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2017-13 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Nine no later than November 21, 2017. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is designated as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    IV. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2017-13 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Nine), filed September 29, 2017.

    2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than November 21, 2017.

    3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21691 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204; FRL-9969-02—Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 Standards; Correction of Deficiency AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve California's Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology and Reasonable Further Progress demonstrations for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standards”) in the Los Angeles-South Coast nonattainment area and to determine that the State has corrected the deficiency that formed the basis for the prior partial disapproval of the Moderate Area Plan submitted for these NAAQS. The proposed determination is based on the EPA's final approval of revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program and 2016 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration. If today's action is finalized as proposed, the sanctions clocks triggered by the partial disapproval will be terminated.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, at [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited 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. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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:

    Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Proposed Action III. Request for Public Comment IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5, particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less or “fine particles,” to provide increased protection of public health by lowering its level from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3 (40 CFR 50.13). Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children (78 FR 3086 at 3088, January 15, 2013). Fine particles can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions among precursor pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia.

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (“South Coast”) as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3 (74 FR 58688). This designation became effective on December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 81.305). The South Coast nonattainment area is also designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's proposed action addresses only requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area.

    On February 13, 2013 and March 4, 2015, California submitted SIP revisions to address planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. We refer to these submissions collectively as the “2012 PM2.5 Plan” or “Plan.” On April 14, 2016, we finalized a partial approval and partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan (81 FR 22025). Our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan was based on deficiencies in the Plan with respect to the Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACM/RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements. Specifically, we found that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan failed to satisfy the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) because it did not provide a demonstration that the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD or “District”) nitrogen oxides (NOX) RECLAIM program ensures that the level of NOX emissions reductions resulting from the RECLAIM program is equivalent, in the aggregate, to those NOX emissions reductions expected from the direct application of RACT on all covered sources within the South Coast nonattainment area. We also found that the Plan failed to meet the requirement for RFP in CAA section 172(c)(2) because the deficiency with respect to RACM/RACT also meant that the State was not implementing all RACM/RACT as expeditiously as practicable. We noted in our final action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan that the State could remedy these deficiencies by submitting revisions to the NOX RECLAIM program together with documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the revised program ensures, in the aggregate, NOX emission reductions equivalent to RACT-level controls for all covered facilities (81 FR at 22028, 22029).

    Our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan became effective on May 16, 2016, and started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after May 16, 2016, and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to CAA section 179 and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. Accordingly, offset sanctions will apply on November 16, 2017, and highway sanctions will apply on May 16, 2018, unless the EPA determines that the State has corrected the deficiency forming the basis of the disapproval.

    On March 17, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a series of amendments to the SCAQMD's NOX RECLAIM program. The submittal was intended to strengthen the program and correct the deficiencies identified in both the EPA's partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan (81 FR 22025, April 14, 2016) and in the EPA's separate proposal to partially disapprove the SCAQMD's “2016 AQMP Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration” (“2016 AQMP RACT SIP”) (81 FR 76547, November 3, 2016). Additionally, on May 22, 2017, CARB submitted the District's public draft version of the “Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards” (“2017 RACT Supplement”) to address these same deficiencies. On June 6, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted NOX RECLAIM program amendments as satisfying general CAA requirements for SIP revisions (82 FR 25996). The EPA finalized this action on September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43176). On June 15, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and the 2017 RACT Supplement as satisfying the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for the South Coast and Coachella Valley nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (82 FR 27451). The EPA finalized this action on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43850).1

    1 CARB submitted the final “Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards” (“2017 RACT Supplement”) on July 27, 2017. See letter dated July 27, 2017, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    II. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to determine that the RECLAIM program amendments submitted by CARB on March 17, 2017, and the 2017 RACT Supplement submitted by CARB on May 22, 2017, together correct the deficiency in the RACM/RACT element of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan that had provided the basis for the EPA's prior partial disapproval of the Plan. As explained in our June 6, 2017 proposed action on the RECLAIM program amendments, the revised program lowers the NOX emission cap in the RECLAIM program and establishes requirements for removing RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) from the trading market to prevent NOX RTCs associated with facilities that have shut down from entering the RECLAIM market and potentially delaying the installation of pollution controls at other facilities (82 FR 25996, 25998, June 6, 2017). These revisions to the RECLAIM program strengthen the SIP by requiring major NOX emission sources covered by the program to collectively achieve additional emission reductions,2 and were fully approved into the California SIP on September 14, 2017 (see 82 FR 43176). Additionally, as explained in our June 15, 2017 proposed action on the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and 2017 RACT Supplement, the 2017 RACT Supplement contains the District's demonstration of how the SIP-approved RECLAIM program has achieved and continues to achieve, in the aggregate, RACT level of control for major NOX sources in the South Coast (82 FR at 27454-27455, June 15, 2017).3 As part of our September 20, 2017 final approval of the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and 2017 RACT Supplement, we concluded that major NOX sources covered by the RECLAIM program are now subject to RACT level control requirements (82 FR 43850, 43856). Implementation of RACT-level control requirements at major NOX sources covered by the RECLAIM program satisfies the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) for these sources. We propose to determine that these SIP submissions correct the RACM/RACT deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and to approve the RACM/RACT demonstration in the Plan, as revised.

    2 The revisions to the RECLAIM program are projected to reduce NOX emissions by 12 tons per day by 2023. See SCAQMD, Summary Minutes of the Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 4, 2015, at 15; see also U.S. EPA, Region IX Air Division, “Technical Support Document for EPA's Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District Regional Clean Air Incentives Market Program Rules,” May 2017, at 9, 10.

    3 For more information on our evaluation of the RECLAIM program in accordance with CAA RACT requirements, see the Technical Support Document accompanying our June 15, 2017 proposed rule (82 FR 27451) and our responses to comments on that proposal (82 FR 43856, September 20, 2017).

    In addition, we are proposing to determine that these SIP submissions correct the RFP deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the Plan. Our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for failure to satisfy the RFP requirement in CAA section 172(c)(2) was predicated on our disapproval of the Plan with respect to the RACM/RACT requirement (81 FR at 22028, April 14, 2016). The Plan, as revised, demonstrates that the State is now implementing RACM/RACT for NOX from covered sources in the South Coast nonattainment area. Therefore, based on our proposal to determine that the State has corrected the RACM/RACT deficiency, we also propose to determine that the State has corrected the RFP deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and to approve the RFP demonstration in the Plan, as revised.

    If finalized as proposed, these determinations will permanently stop the sanctions clocks triggered by our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

    III. Request for Public Comment

    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this preamble.

    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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

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

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

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 26, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21610 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 194 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 Notices UNITED STATES AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors AGENCY:

    United States African Development Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration.

    DATES:

    The meeting date is Monday, October 30, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place via teleconference, with staff congregating at USADF, 1400 I St. Northwest, Suite #1000, (Executive Conference Room), Washington, DC 20005-2246.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marie-Cécile Groelsema, 202-233-8883.

    Authority:

    Public Law 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290h).

    Dated: October 3, 2017. June B. Brown, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21745 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-SC-17-0060; SC17-929-1] Cranberries Grown in States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York; Request for Approval of a New Information Collection AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agency's intent to request emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection for cranberry handlers, where applicable, to provide prior affirmative consent authorizing five forms needed to implement and facilitate compliance with a handler withhold volume regulation for the 2017-18 season under the marketing order for cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 11, 2017. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden that would result from this notice must be received by December 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice by using the electronic process available at www.regulations.gov. Written comments may also be submitted to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938. All comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Agency: Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

    Title: Cranberries grown in States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York; Marketing Order No. 929.

    OMB Number: 0581-NEW.

    Type of Request: New Information Collection.

    Abstract: The information requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the cranberry marketing order program. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for overseeing Marketing Agreement and Order No. 929, as amended (7 CFR part 929), regulating the handling of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Act.

    On August 31, 2017, the Cranberry Marketing Committee (Committee) recommended establishing a handler withhold volume regulation for the 2017-18 season in response to historically high inventory levels for cranberries. Following the recommendation for the handler withhold, the Committee developed the forms necessary to effectively carry out the handler withhold. Given that the industry has begun harvesting the 2017-18 crop, these forms need to be effective immediately.

    On September 15, 2017, the Committee unanimously recommended that cranberry handlers covered under the order provide the Committee with a report indicating the anticipated total quantity of cranberries acquired by the handler, the amount withheld from handling, and the disposition of such withheld cranberries during the crop year. This form, titled “Handler Withholding Report,” will be submitted directly to the Committee by handlers by June 1, 2018. This report will give the Committee background data on how each handler plans to meet the requirements of the handler withhold volume regulation.

    The Committee also recommended that handlers covered under the order submit a report certifying whenever a disposal of withheld cranberries is made. This report will contain information regarding the volume, the form of disposed cranberries, and information on the container type. This form, titled “Handler Disposal Certification,” will be submitted directly to the Committee by handlers following each disposal activity. This information collection provides the Committee with data regarding the amount of cranberries diverted and the information needed to help track handler compliance with the recommended handler withhold.

    The Committee also recommended that handlers provide the Committee with a record of withheld cranberries disposed of in non-commercial outlets. This form, titled “Handler Application for Outlets for Withheld Fruit,” will be submitted directly to the Committee by handlers to provide information regarding the type, form, and volume of cranberries disposed of in noncompetitive outlets. Handlers will submit this form prior to each disposal activity of this type to provide the Committee with the opportunity to review and approve the requested outlet. This information collection provides the Committee with information on the noncompetitive outlets used to meet the requirements for withheld cranberries, and is necessary for the Committee to track compliance with the recommended handler withhold.

    The Committee also recommended that handlers submit a report confirming the third-party receipt of withheld fruit. This form, titled “Third-Party Confirmation of Receipt of Withheld Fruit,” will include certification by outlets receiving withheld cranberries for use in a noncompetitive outlet. This form needs to be filed after each shipment of withheld fruit received by noncompetitive outlets, such as charities. This report contains information on the type, form, and volume of withheld fruit received. This reporting requirement helps track the disposition of withheld cranberries and facilitates compliance with the recommended handler withhold.

    The Committee also recommended establishing a form for handlers to use to appeal any denial of a request made for disposing of cranberries in a noncompetitive outlet. This form, titled “Handler Withholding Appeal,” will need to be submitted by the handler making the appeal within 30 days of the denial. This form will include information on why the handler is making the appeal and what additional information is being provided.

    The order authorizes the Committee to collect certain information as required. The information collected will only be used by authorized representatives of the USDA, including the AMS Specialty Crops Program regional and headquarters staff, and authorized employees of the Committee. All proprietary information will be kept confidential in accordance with the Act and the order.

    The Committee developed these forms to effectively carry out a handler withhold volume regulation for the 2017-18 season. The purpose of these forms will be to ensure compliance with the recommended handler withhold.

    Upon OMB approval of the new forms and the information collection package, AMS will request OMB approval to merge the new forms and this information collection in the currently approved information collection OMB control number 0581-0189, Fruit Crops.

    The new information collection under the order is as follows:

    Handler Withholding Report (CMC-JUN)

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.08 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 0.8 hours.

    Handler Disposal Certification (CMC-DISP)

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.17 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 20.4 hours.

    Handler Application for Outlets for Withheld Fruit (CMC-OUT)

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.08 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 9.6 hours.

    Third-Party Confirmation of Receipt of Withheld Fruit (CMC-CONF)

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.05 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 6 hours.

    Handler Withholding Appeal (CMC-APPL)

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.08 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 0.8 hours.

    Comments are invited 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 collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: October 4, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21735 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Volunteer Application and Agreement for Natural and Cultural Resources Agencies AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension with revision of a currently approved information collection entitled, Volunteer Application for Natural Resources Agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Merlene Mazyck, Volunteers & Service, Forest Service, USDA, 201 14th St. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1125. Comments also may be submitted via email to: [email protected]

    The public may inspect comments received at Forest Service, USDA, 201 14th St. SW., Washington, DC during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 202-205-0650 to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Merlene Mazyck, Volunteers & Service, 202-205-0650. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Volunteer Service Packet for Natural & Cultural Resources.

    OMB Number: 0596-0080.

    Expiration Date of Approval: 12/31/2017.

    Type of Request: Extension with Revision.

    Abstract: The collected information is needed by participating natural resources agencies to manage agency volunteer programs. Information is collected from potential and selected volunteers of all ages. Those under the age of 18 years must have written consent from a parent or guardian.

    Participating Agencies

    The volunteer programs of the following natural resource agencies are included:

    Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service;

    Department of the Interior: National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and U.S. Geological Survey;

    Department of Defense: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;

    Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

    Forms

    OF-301 Volunteer Application: Individuals interested in volunteering may access the National Federal volunteer opportunities Web site (http://www.volunteer.gov), individual agency Web sites, and/or contact agencies to request a Volunteer Application (OF-301).

    Applicants provide name, address, telephone number, age, preferred work categories, available dates, preferred location, indication of physical limitations, and lodging preferences. Information collected using this form assists agency volunteer coordinators and other personnel in matching volunteers with agency opportunities appropriate for an applicant's skills and physical condition and availability. Signature of a parent or guardian is mandatory for applicants under 18 years of age.

    OF-301A Volunteer Service Agreement: This form is used by participating resource agencies to document agreements for volunteer services between a Federal agency and individual or group volunteers, including international volunteers. Signature of parent or guardian is mandatory for applicants under 18 years of age.

    OF-301B Volunteer Group Sign-up: This form is used by participating resource agencies to document awareness and understanding by individuals in groups about the volunteer activities between a Federal agency and a partner organization with group participants. Signature of parent or guardian is mandatory for applicants under 18 years of age.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: 15 minutes per form.

    Type of Respondents: Individuals.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 500,000.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.5.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 125,000 hours.

    Comment is invited:

    Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21667 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Urban Forest in Atlanta, GA AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a renewal of the information collection, Environmental Justice and the Urban Forest in Atlanta, GA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Cassandra Johnson Gaither, Forestry Sciences Lab, 320 Green St., Athens, GA 30602. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to (706) 559-4266 or by email to: [email protected]

    The public may inspect comments received at Forestry Sciences Lab, 320 Green St., Athens, GA 30602 during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to (706) 559-4264 to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cassandra Johnson Gaither, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 706-559-4270. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Environmental Justice and the Urban Forest in Atlanta, GA.

    OMB Number: 0596-0237.

    Expiration Date of Approval:

    Type of Request: Renewal.

    Abstract: This information collection will gather data on city of Atlanta residents' interest in and engagement with the city's urban forest. The urban forest is defined as trees on both public spaces (e.g., parks) and on private residences. Engagement is defined as people's interest and awareness of city trees, interest in tree maintenance at both the household and community level, and their participation in decisions about whether trees should be maintained. The information collection also gathers data on social stressors such as crime rates, affordable housing, and stormwater management. The data is intended to provide information on the broader context from which people make decisions about engaging with city trees. If people lack basic needs such as access to healthy foods and safe neighborhoods, it's unlikely that they would demonstrate a high degree of engagement with the city's urban forest. Taken together, these data on people's ability to engage with the urban forest and constraints to doing so provide an indication of environmental justice with respect to Atlanta's urban forest. Environmental justice, in its broader sense, has to do with people's physical proximity to both environmental burdens and the access to environmental goods or amenities like urban parks and forests, and tree-lined streets.

    This information collection addresses environmental justice from the perspective of urban trees and how this resource may contribute to environmental justice in a given community or neighborhood.

    The survey will be conducted face-to-face at the household using electronic devices. Neighborhood residents trained in appropriate data collection techniques will collect the information. Data on city of Atlanta residents' interest in and engagement with city trees will be collected. This includes information about engagement at both the household and community level. For instance, at the household level, questions are asked about the ability and knowledge that people may have about city trees. And at the community level, questions are asked about a community's political strength and how this may affect that community's ability to command tree planting by the city.

    Data will be collected from residents in the city of Atlanta. If the information proposed herein is not collected, efforts to understand how urban dwellers in large, southern cities like Atlanta are connected to urban green spaces will be diminished.

    Type of Respondents: City of Atlanta residents.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1900.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 minute.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 212 hours.

    Comment Is Invited

    Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Dated: September 27, 2017. Felipe Sanchez, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, Research & Development.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21681 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection: Federal and Non-Federal Financial Assistance Instruments AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the revision of a currently approved information collection, OMB 0596-0217, Federal and Non-Federal Financial Assistance Instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Jacqueline Henry, USDA Forest Service, Branch Chief for Grants and Agreements Policy, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mailstop 1138, Washington, DC 20250.

    Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 703-605-4776 or by email to: [email protected]

    The public may inspect comments received at USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 703-605-4776 to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacqueline Henry, Branch Chief, Grants and Agreements Policy, telephone 703-605-4776.

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Federal and Non-Federal Financial Assistance Instruments.

    OMB Number: 0596-0217.

    Expiration Date of Approval: 02/28/2018.

    Type of Request: Extension with revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: In order to perform specific Forest Service activities, Congress created several authorities to assist the Agency in carrying out its mission. The Forest Service issues Federal Financial Assistance (FFA) awards, which are grants and cooperative agreements, as authorized by the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act (FGCAA). This collection includes the following forms:

    (1) Federal Financial Assistance Standard Forms,

    (2) Pre-certification forms,

    (3) Award and administrative related correspondence, and

    (4) A new questionnaire related to a recipient's accounting system and financial management capabilities.

    In addition to FFA, Congress created specific authorizations for acts outside the scope of the FGCAA. Appropriations language was developed to convey authority for the Forest Service to enter into relationships that are outside the scope of the FGCAA. The Forest Service implements these authorizations using instruments such as collection agreements, FGCAA exempted agreements, memorandums of understanding, and other agreements which mutually benefit participating parties. These instruments fall outside the scope of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and often require financial plans and statements of work. Forest Service employees collect information from cooperating parties from the pre-award to the closeout stage via telephone calls, emails, postal mail, and person-to-person meetings to create, develop, and administer these funded and non-funded agreements. The multiple means for respondents to communicate their responses include forms, non-forms, electronic documents, face-to-face, telephone, and Internet. The scope of information collected varies; however, it typically includes the project type, project scope, financial plan, statement of work, and cooperator's business information.

    The Forest Service would not be able to create, develop, and administer these funded and non-funded agreements without the collected information. The Agency would also be unable to develop or monitor projects, make or receive payments, or identify financial and accounting errors.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: 1 to 4 hours annually per person.

    Type of Respondents: Non-profit and for profit institutions; institutions of higher education; State, local, and Native American tribal governments, individuals; foreign governments; and organizations.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 15,000.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 to 4.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 28,000 hours.

    Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Dated: September 25, 2017. Andria Weeks, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21680 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    October 16, 2017, 1:00 p.m. e.d.t.

    PLACE:

    U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on October 16, 2017, starting at 1:00 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC, at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 910. The Board will discuss open investigations, an update on recommendations, the status of audits from the Office of the Inspector General, and financial and organizational updates. An opportunity for public comment will be provided.

    Additional Information

    The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the Contact Person for Further Information, at least three business days prior to the meeting.

    A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference: Dial in Number: 888-862-6557 Confirmation Number: 45765401.

    The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

    Public Comment

    The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Hillary Cohen, Communications Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 446-8094. Further information about this public meeting can be found on the CSB Web site at: www.csb.gov.

    Dated: October 4, 2017. Raymond C. Porfiri, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21821 Filed 10-5-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory Committee To Discuss Hearing Preparations for Barriers to Voting Report AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Louisiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Central for a discussion on Barriers to Voting in Louisiana.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Central.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Barreras, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 888-208-1815, Conference ID: 9544831.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-208-1815, conference ID: 9544831. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to David Barreras at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Louisiana Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=251&aid=17). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion of Barriers to Voting—Hearing preparations Next Steps Public Comment Adjournment

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance that this project will inform the Commission's FY2018 statutory enforcement report on voting rights and is therefore under a very tight timeline.

    Dated: September 27, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21033 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Review and Discuss a Draft Report Regarding Civil Rights and Voter Participation in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of reviewing and discussing a draft report regarding civil rights and voting in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST, Public Call Information: Dial: 800-474-8920, Conference ID: 6700535.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the call in information listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement to the Committee as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Illinois Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246). Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion: Draft Report, Voting Rights in Illinois Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: October 3, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21657 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Michigan Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, October 20, 2017, at 1 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, October 20, 2017, at 1 p.m. EST, Public Call Information: Dial: 888-430-8678, Conference ID: 8364198.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-430-8678, conference ID: 8364198. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting.

    An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Michigan Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=255). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Discussion: Potential Civil Rights issues in Michigan for study Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: October 3, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21658 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Vermont Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Vermont Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 11:00 a.m. (EDT) on: Friday, October 27, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for planning future projects and discuss draft housing report.

    DATES:

    Friday, October 27, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. EDT.

    Public Call-In Information: Conference call-in number: 1-888-455-2238 and conference call 5295473.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy Davis at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-455-2238 and conference call 5295473. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-455-2238 and conference call 5295473.

    Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=278, click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda Friday, October 27, 2017 • Rollcall • Discussion of Draft Housing Report • Plan Future Projects • Next Steps • Other Business • Adjourn Dated: October 3, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21654 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [9/20/2017 through 9/30/2017] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for investigation Product(s) Solmet Technologies, Inc 2716 Shepler Church Avenue SW., Canton, OH 44706 9/20/2017 The firm manufactures large steel forgings, primarily for boring and sinking machinery. I.G. Marston Co., Inc 8 Mear Road, Holbrook, MA 02343 9/28/2017 The firm manufactures custom, non-metallic components such as washers, gaskets, seals, tags, insulators, and discs made of plastic, rubber, neoprene, nylon, and many other non-metallic materials. Micromatic Spring and Stamping Co., Inc 45 North Church Street, Addison, IL 60101 9/28/2017 The firm manufactures springs, stampings, and wire forms made of iron or steel wire. Development Associates, Inc 300 Old Baptist Road, North Kingstown, RI 02852 9/29/2017 The firm manufactures two-part polyurethane resins (clear polyurethane resin which is auto-grade, non-yellowing, UV-stable, and mercury-free; clear polyurethane coating; clear urethane resin; urethane adhesive; epoxy primer; and wire and cable coating) for many applications. Automatic Machine Products Co 400 Constitution Drive, Taunton, MA 02780 9/29/2017 The firm manufactures refrigeration and air-conditioning safety, pressure, and complete shut-off valves and related assemblies, fittings, and components, all of steel and brass.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Irette Patterson, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21656 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-502] Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 2015-2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand. This review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai) and Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited (Pacific Pipe). The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to our preliminary findings for Saha Thai. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed producers/exporters are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”

    DATES:

    October 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 6, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results. 1 For a history of events that have occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Finding of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 82 FR 16793 (April 6, 2017) (Preliminary Results).

    2See “Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.3

    3See Issues and Decision Memorandum for a full description of the scope of order.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues raised, and to which we responded, in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    The Department preliminarily found that Pacific Pipe had no shipments and, therefore, no reviewable transactions during the POR. The Department received no further comments or information that refute this finding. Thus, the Department continues to find that Pacific Pipe had no reviewable transactions during the POR.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have made certain changes to Saha Thai's margin calculation.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016:

    Producer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd 1.36 Pacific Pipe Company Limited * * No shipments or sales subject to this review. The company has an individual rate from a prior segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments or sales.
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department determined, and U.S. 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 appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.

    For Saha Thai, we will base the assessment rate for the corresponding entries on the margin listed above. Additionally, because the Department determined that Pacific Pipe had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries that entered under Pacific Pipe's name will be liquidated at the all-others rate effective during the POR.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above in the Final Results of Review, including those for which the Department may determine had no shipments during the POR, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or another completed segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the “all-others” rate of 15.67 percent established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.4 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    4See Antidumping Duty Order; Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986).

    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 doubled antidumping duties.

    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Summary Background Scope of the Order Determination of No Shipments for Pacific Pipe Discussion of the Issues 1. Whether to Disregard Saha Thai's Reported Pipe Specification/Grade Designations 2. Whether to Adjust Saha Thai's Reported Coil Costs 3. Whether to Grant a Duty Drawback Adjustment to Saha Thai 4. Whether to Revise the Date Range for Saha Thai's Home Market and U.S. Sales
    [FR Doc. 2017-21747 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-870] Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016. This review covers 31 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The Department preliminarily determines that NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL) and SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH), the two companies selected for individual examination, sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable October 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Victoria Cho or Deborah Scott, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075 or (202) 482-2657, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department initiated this administrative review on November 9, 2016.1 We selected two mandatory respondents in this review, NEXTEEL and SeAH. For a detailed description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with these preliminary results and hereby adopted by this notice.2

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 78778 (November 9, 2016).

    2See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea; 2015-2016,” dated October 2, 2017 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). Access to ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix 1. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the order also covers OCTG coupling stock. For the full text of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Among the companies under review, Hyundai RB Co., Ltd. (Hyundai RB), Samsung, Samsung C&T Corporation (Samsung C&T), and SeAH Besteel Corporation (SeAH Besteel) properly filed certifications reporting that they had no exports, sales, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.3 Based on the certifications submitted by these companies and our analysis of information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), we preliminarily determine that Hyundai RB, Samsung, Samsung C&T, and SeAH Besteel had no shipments during the POR. For a full explanation of the Department's analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    3See Letter from Hyundai RB, “Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: No Shipment Letter,” dated December 9, 2016; Letter from Samsung and Samsung C&T, “Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: No Shipment Letter,” dated December 9, 2016; and Letter from SeAH Besteel, “Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea for the 2015-16 Review Period—No Shipments Letter,” dated December 7, 2016.

    The Department finds that it is not appropriate to preliminarily rescind the review with respect to these companies but, rather, intends to complete the review with respect to these companies and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.

    Rates for Non-Examined Companies

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.”

    In this review, we have preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for NEXTEEL and SeAH that are not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily has assigned to the companies not individually examined (see Appendix 2 for a full list of these companies) a margin of 17.98 percent, which is the weighted average of NEXTEEL's and SeAH's calculated weighted-average dumping margins.4

    4 For more information regarding the calculation of this margin, see Memorandum, “Calculation of the Margin for Non-Examined Companies,” dated October 2, 2017. As the weighting factor, we relied on the publicly ranged sales data reported in NEXTEEL's and SeAH's quantity and value charts.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that, for the period September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016, the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Producer or exporter Weighted-average dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. 46.37 SeAH Steel Corporation 6.66 Non-examined companies 19.68
    Disclosure, Public Comment, and Opportunity To Request a Hearing

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.5 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.6 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS 7 and must be served on interested parties.8 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    7See generally 19 CFR 351.303.

    8See 19 CFR 351.303(f).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.9 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.10 Parties should confirm the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    9See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    10See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended.11

    11See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, if the respondent reported reliable entered values, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made to each importer and the total entered value of those same sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If the respondent has not reported reliable entered values, we will calculate a per-unit assessment rate for each importer by dividing the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made to that importer by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). If a respodent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.” 12

    12See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by NEXTEEL or SeAH for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, or for any respondent for which we have a final determination of no shipments, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.13

    13See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the final results of review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 5.24 percent,14 the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    14See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination, 81 FR 59603 (August 30, 2016).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix 1 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments 5. Rates for Non-Examined Companies 6. Duty Absorption 7. Affiliation 8. Discussion of the Methodology 9. Currency Conversion 10. Recommendation Appendix 2 List of Companies Not Individually Examined BDP International Daewoo America Daewoo International Corporation Dong-A Steel Co. Ltd. Dong Yang Steel Pipe Dongbu Incheon Steel DSEC Erndtebruecker Eisenwerk and Company Hansol Metal Husteel Co., Ltd. Hyundai HYSCO Hyundai Steel Company 15

    15 On September 21, 2016, the Department published the final results of a changed circumstances review with respect to OCTG from Korea, finding that Hyundai Steel Corporation is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO for purposes of determining antidumping duty cash deposits and liabilities. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea, 81 FR 64873 (September 21, 2016). Hyundai Steel Company is also known as Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai Steel Co. Ltd.

    ILJIN Steel Corporation Jim And Freight Co., Ltd. Kia Steel Co. Ltd. KSP Steel Company Kukje Steel Kurvers POSCO Daewoo Corporation POSCO Daewoo America Steel Canada Sumitomo Corporation TGS Pipe Yonghyun Base Materials ZEECO Asia
    [FR Doc. 2017-21749 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-912] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission of New Shipper Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review (AR) and a new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) for the AR and NSR is September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016. The administrative review covers six exporters of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (Zhongwei), one of three companies selected for individual examination, made sales of subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. We also preliminarily determine to rescind the new shipper review initiated for Carlisle (Meizhou) Rubber Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Carlisle Meizhou), and CTP Distribution (HK) Limited (CTP HK) (collectively, Carlstar). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective October 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alex Rosen, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7814.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On November 3, 2016, the Department initiated a new shipper review of exports of subject merchandise made by CTP Distribution (HK) Limited (CTP HK), produced in the PRC by Carlisle (Meizhou) Rubber Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Carlisle Meizhou).1 2 On November 9, 2016, the Department initiated the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OTR tires from the PRC.3 On March 2, 2017, the Department aligned the NSR with the AR.4 On April 4, 2017, the Department rescinded the review for three exporters for which the AR was initiated.5 On May 17, 2017, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results of review by 120 days, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to October 2, 2017.6 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of these reviews, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.7 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix to this notice.

    1 The NSR was requested by Carlstar Group LLC (formerly dba CTP Transportation Products) (Carlstar Group), a U.S. producer of OTR tires, and an importer of subject merchandise concerning merchandise produced by Carlisle Meizhou, its affiliated producer of OTR tires from the PRC, and exported by CTP HK, an affiliated trading company located in Hong Kong (collectively, Carlstar).

    2See letter from Carlstar, “New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China Entry of Appearance and Request for New Shipper Review,” dated September 20, 2016 (NSR Request); see also Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 81 FR 76560 (November 3, 2016) (NSR Initiation).

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 81 FR 78778 (November 9, 2016) (Initiation Notice). The Department initiated on the following: Cheng Shin Rubber Industry Ltd. (Chengshin), Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd., Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd. (GTC), Qingdao Milestone Tyres Co. Ltd. (Milestone), Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co. Ltd. (Qihang), Shandong Zhentai Group Co., Ltd. (Zhentai), Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Xingtai) Co., Ltd. (TWS), Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (Zhongwei), Weifang Jintongda Tyre Co., Ltd. (Jintongda), and Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited (Zhongce). The Department previously collapsed GTC and Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Corporation (GTCIE) into a single entity in the original investigation, see Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 9278, 9283 (February 20, 2008), unchanged in Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008). This decision is unchallenged in the instant review; thus, the Department continues to treat GTC and GTCIE as a single entity (collectively, GTC).

    4See memorandum to the file, “Waiver of Time Limits for New Shipper Review and Align with Concurrent Administrative Review,” dated March 2, 2017 (Alignment Memo).

    5See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 16348 (April 4, 2017).

    6See memorandum to Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review,” dated May 17, 2017.

    7See memorandum to Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission of New Shipper Review: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China; 2015-2016,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order 8

    The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    8 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Rescission of the New Shipper Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), an exporter or producer may request a NSR within one year of the date on which subject merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if the exporter or producer cannot establish the date of the first entry, then the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the United States.

    As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum and Preliminary NSR Rescission Memorandum,9 the Department preliminarily finds that Carlstar's request for review was not timely filed within one year of the date the subject merchandise produced and exported by Carlstar or its predecessor was first entered into the United States, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c) of the Department's regulations.

    9See memorandum to the file, “New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission Memorandum for Carlstar,” dated concurrently with this memorandum (Preliminary NSR Rescission Memorandum).

    Because we find that Carlstar's request for review was not timely filed, we are preliminarily determining that Carlstar's request did not meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(c), and are rescinding the new shipper review for Carlstar. Because much of the factual information used in our analysis involves business proprietary information, a full discussion of the basis for our preliminary determination is set forth in the Preliminary NSR Rescission Memorandum.

    Separate Rates

    The Department preliminarily determines that information placed on the record by the mandatory respondent, Zhongwei, as well as two separate rate applicants, Qihang and Shandong Zhentai, demonstrates that these companies are entitled to receive separate rates. For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    PRC-Wide Entity

    The Department's policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to these reviews.10 Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity in the AR or NSR, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate (i.e., 105.31 percent) is not subject to change.11 Aside from the separate rate companies discussed above, the Department considers all other companies 12 for which a review was requested, including the mandatory respondent GTC, to be ineligible for a separate rate based on information provided. For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    10See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    11See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 20197 (April 15, 2015).

    12 These companies include the mandatory respondent, Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd and Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd. (GTC), separate rate applicant, Cheng Shin Rubber Industry Ltd., and non-responsive respondent, Qingdao Milestone Tyres Co. Ltd.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Export and constructed export prices were calculated in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. Because the PRC is a nonmarket economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (NV) has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Rate for Separate Rate Companies Not Individually Examined

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination of companies subject to the administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents not individually examined in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference for not calculating an all-others rate using rates which are zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts available (FA).13 Accordingly, the Department's usual practice has been to determine the dumping margin for companies not individually examined by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for the individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.14 Consistent with this practice, in the AR, we preliminarily calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for Zhongwei that is above de minimis and not based entirely on FA; therefore, the Department preliminarily assigns to Qihang and Zhentai the weighted-average margin calculated for Zhongwei as the separate rate for this review.

    13See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.

    14See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd 4.54 Shandong Zhentai Group Co., Ltd 4.54 Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co. Ltd 4.54

    Additionally, the Department preliminarily determines that Cheng Shing, GTC, and Qingdao Milestone are part of the PRC-wide entity.

    Disclosure, Public Comment and Opportunity To Request a Hearing

    The Department intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in these reviews within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal Register.15 Rebuttals to case briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.16 Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (a) a statement of the issue, (b) a brief summary of the argument, and (c) a table of authorities.17 Parties submitting briefs should do so pursuant to the Department's electronic filing system, ACCESS.18

    15See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    16See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1)-(2).

    17See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2).

    18See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.19 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.20

    19See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    20See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of these reviews, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews.21 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of these reviews.

    21See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    For assessment purposes, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Assessment Rate Modification.22 For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final results of these reviews, the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer-(or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.23 Where either a respondent's weighted average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-(or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.24 For the respondents that were not selected for individual examination in the administrative review and that qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be based on the average of the mandatory respondents.25

    22See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Assessment Rate Modification) in the manner described in more detail in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    23See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    24See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    25See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Pursuant to the Department's practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during the administrative review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.26

    26 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Because we are preliminarily rescinding the new shipper review of Carlstar, we are not making a determination as to whether Carlstar qualifies for a separate rate. Therefore, if the Department proceeds to final rescission, Carlstar will remain part of the PRC-wide entity and, accordingly, any entries covered by this new shipper review will be assessed at the PRC-wide rate. If we do not proceed to final rescission, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate for Carlstar, consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1) and will instruct CBP to assess AD duties on all appropriate entries covered by the NSR if the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of the NSR is above de minimis.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 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 existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Because we preliminarily did not calculate a dumping margin for Carlstar or grant Carlstar a separate rate in this new shipper review, as noted above, we find that Carlstar continues to be part of the PRC-wide entity. The cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity is 105.31 percent. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Preliminary Determination To Rescind The New Shipper Review V. Discussion of Methodology A. Non-Market Economy Country B. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data C. Surrogate Country D. Separate Rates E. Margin for the Companies Individually Examined F. Margin for the Separate Rate Companies Not Individually Examined G. Margin for Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate H. Date of Sale I. Comparisons to Normal Value J. Export Price K. Value-Added Tax L. Normal Value M. Factor Valuations N. Currency Conversion VI. Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the Act VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-21748 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products and a service from the Procurement List that were previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Deletions

    The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6532-00-926-9964—Smock, Mans Dental Operating 6532-00-926-9975—Smock, Mans Dental Operating 6532-00-926-9976—Smock, Mans Dental Operating 6532-00-159-4881—Smock, Mans Dental Operating Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Human Technologies Corporation, Utica, NY Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5510-00-NSH-0044—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0045—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0046—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0047—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0048—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0049—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0050—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0051—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0052—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0053—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0054—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0055—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0056—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0057—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0058—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0059—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0060—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0061—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0062—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0063—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0064—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0065—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0066—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0067—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0068—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0069—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0070—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0071—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0072—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0073—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0074—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0075—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0076—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0077—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0078—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0079—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0080—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0081—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0082—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0083—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0084—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0085—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0086—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0087—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0088—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0089—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0090—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0091—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0092—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0093—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0094—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0095—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0096—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0097—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0101—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0102—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0103—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0104—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0105—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood 5510-00-NSH-0106—Stakes/Lath, Survey, Wood Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Siskiyou Opportunity Center, Inc., Mt. Shasta, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8470-00-NSH-0030—Improved Oxygen Harness Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Employment Source, Inc., Fayetteville, NC Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Command—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division Service Service Type: Mail and Messenger Service Mandatory for: Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC): Southern Division Charleston, SC Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Palmetto Goodwill Services, North Charleston, SC Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Navy Facilities Engineering Command Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21653 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Membership of the Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of board membership.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the appointment of the Department of Defense, Fourth Estate, Performance Review Board (PRB) members, to include the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Defense Field Activities, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the following Defense Agencies: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Defense Health Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Legal Services Agency, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Prisoners of War/Missing in Action Accounting Agency, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Missile Defense Agency, and Pentagon Force Protection Agency. The PRB shall provide fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service and Senior Professional performance appraisals and make recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance awards to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

    DATES:

    The board membership is applicable beginning on September 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura E. Devlin, Assistant Director for Office of the Secretary of Defense Senior Executive Management Office, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense, (703) 693-8373.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following executives are appointed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense PRB with specific PRB panel assignments being made from this group. Executives listed will serve a one-year renewable term, beginning September 14, 2017.

    Office of the Secretary of Defense Authorizing Official—Patrick M. Shanahan, Deputy Secretary of Defense Principal Executive Representative—Michael L. Rhodes Chairperson—Glenda H. Scheiner PRB Panel Members ABERCROMBIE, CARA L. ATKINSON, MICHELLE C. ATWOOD, III, GEORGE W. BAKER, JAMES H. BALLARD, JAMES L. BANKS, ROXANNE J. BARNA, STEPHANIE A. BEEBE, MATTHEW R. BENJAMIN, MICHAEL A. BLANKS, JULIE A. BOOTH, SR., WILLIAM H. BRENNAN, KENNETH M. CASE, MARCIA A. CONKLIN, PAMELA F. ENGLANDER, KEITH L. ESHENBRENNER, BRIAN W. GARRETT, RONNA ROWE HANDELMAN, KENNETH B. HIGGINS, MAUREEN B. JOHNSON, DAVID E. KIYOKAWA, GUY T. KOFFSKY, PAUL S. LEIST, JR., MICHAEL N. LEWIS, ALAN D. MCAFEE, MARY ANN S. MCCORMICK, BETH M. MEYERS, KAREN F. MICHELLI, THOMAS P. MOOREFIELD, FREDERICK D. POTOCHNEY, PETER J. RATHBUN, JANE O. REEVES-FLORES, NANCY SALAZAR, TERESA M. SANDERS, DAVID D. SCHLEIEN, STEVEN L. SCHLESS, SCOTT R. TINSLEY, ROSALIE W. THOMPSON, LAUREN C. TRAMBLE, SYLANA A. WATSON, KENNETH D. WEATHERINGTON, DYKE D. WILUSZ, JOSEPH-PAUL VETTER, RUTH M. Dated: October 4, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21771 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences will take place.

    DATES:

    Friday, November 3, 2017, open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Closed session will occur from approximately 10:50 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Everett Alvarez Jr. Board of Regents Room (D3001), Bethesda, Maryland 20814.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Nuetzi James, 301-295-3066 (Voice), 301-295-1960 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 4301 Jones Bridge Road, A1020, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Web site: https://www.usuhs.edu/vpe/bor.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, on academic and administrative matters critical to the full accreditation and successful operation of USU. These actions are necessary for USU to pursue its mission, which is to educate, train and comprehensively prepare uniformed services health professionals, officers, scientists and leaders to support the Military and Public Health Systems, the National Security and National Defense Strategies of the United States, and the readiness of our Uniformed Services.

    Agenda: The actions scheduled to occur include the review of the minutes from the Board meeting held on August 1, 2017; recommendations regarding the awarding of associate, baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate degrees; recommendations regarding the approval of faculty appointments and promotions; and recommendations regarding award nominations. The USU President will provide a report on recent actions affecting academic and operational aspects of USU. Member reports will include an Academics Summary consisting of reports from the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI), USU Faculty Senate, Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine (HJF), and Vice President for Information and Education Technology. Member Reports will also include a Finance and Administration Summary consisting of reports from the Senior Vice President, Southern Region; Senior Vice President, Western Region; Vice President for Finance and Administration; Vice President for External Affairs; and Assistant Vice President for Accreditation and Organizational Assessment. There will be reports from the Dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Dean of the Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing, Executive Dean of the Postgraduate Dental College, and Dean of the College of Allied Health Sciences. There will also be reports on the USU Organizational Structure and the USU School of Medicine Regional Education and Academic Support. A closed session will be held, after the open session, to discuss active investigations and personnel actions.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to Federal statutes and regulations (5 U.S.C., Appendix, 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165) and the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Seating is on a first-come basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting should contact Jennifer Nuetzi James no later than five business days prior to the meeting, at the address and phone number noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2, 5-7), the Department of Defense has determined that the portion of the meeting from 10:50 a.m. to 11:50 a.m. shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in consultation with the Office of the Department of Defense General Counsel, has determined in writing that this portion of the Board's meeting will be closed as the discussion will disclose sensitive personnel information, will include matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the agency, will involve allegations of a person having committed a crime or censuring an individual, and may disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 and 41 CFR 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Board about its approved agenda pertaining to this meeting or at any time regarding the Board's mission. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Board may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at the planned meeting, then these statements must be received at least 5 calendar days prior to the meeting, otherwise, the comments may not be provided to or considered by the Board until a later date. The Designated Federal Officer will compile all timely submissions with the Board's Chair and ensure such submissions are provided to Board Members before the meeting.

    Dated: October 4, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21761 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Federal advisory committee meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, October 25 and 26, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on each day. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link: http://www.pfpa.mil/access.html.

    ADDRESSES:

    Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting room will be displayed on the information screen for both days. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LTC Robert McDonald, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3600, email: [email protected], phone: 571-256-9006 or Peter Nash, email: [email protected], phone: 703-693-5111.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Meetings: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Government-Industry Advisory Panel will review sections 2320 and 2321 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), regarding rights in technical data and the validation of proprietary data restrictions and the regulations implementing such sections, for the purpose of ensuring that such statutory and regulatory requirements are best structured to serve the interest of the taxpayers and the national defense. The scope of the panel is as follows: (1) Ensuring that the Department of Defense (DoD) does not pay more than once for the same work, (2) Ensuring that the DoD contractors are appropriately rewarded for their innovation and invention, (3) Providing for cost-effective reprocurement, sustainment, modification, and upgrades to the DoD systems, (4) Encouraging the private sector to invest in new products, technologies, and processes relevant to the missions of the DoD, and (5) Ensuring that the DoD has appropriate access to innovative products, technologies, and processes developed by the private sector for commercial use.

    Agenda: This will be the twenty-second meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel and continued recurring teleconference meetings. The panel will cover details of 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321, begin understanding the implementing regulations and detail the necessary groups within the private sector and government to provide supporting documentation for their review of these codes and regulations during follow-on meetings. Agenda items for this meeting will include the following: (1) Final review of tension point information papers; (2) Rewrite FY17 NDAA 2320 and 2321 language; (3) Review Report Framework and Format for Publishing; (4) Comment Adjudication & Planning for follow-on meeting.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the October 25-26 meeting will be available as requested or at the following site: https://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=2561&aid=41. It will also be distributed upon request.

    Minor changes to the agenda will be announced at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the FACA database after the meeting.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin upon publication of this meeting notice and end three business days (October 20) prior to the start of the meeting. All members of the public must contact LTC McDonald or Mr. Nash at the phone number or email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements for Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees should arrive at the Pentagon's Visitor's Center, located near the Pentagon Metro Station's south exit and adjacent to the Pentagon Transit Center bus terminal with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 8:30 a.m. on October 25-26. To complete security screening, please come prepared to present two forms of identification of which one must be a pictured identification card. Government and military DoD CAC holders are not required to have an escort, but are still required to pass through the Visitor's Center to gain access to the Building. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee.

    Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access.

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC McDonald, the committee DFO, or Mr. Nash at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to LTC McDonald, the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the panel until its next meeting. Please note that because the panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) business days in advance to the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the panel's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 30-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described in this paragraph, will be allotted no more than five (5) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

    Dated: October 4, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21768 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic 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, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    1 Telephone Call Summary for call on 8/17/17 with RG Developers.

    2 Telephone Call Summary for call on 9/6/17 with RG Developers.

    3 Senators Shelley Moore Capito, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis, and Luther Strange.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited: 1. CP15-558-000 9-19-2017 Greater Reading Chamber & Economic Development Corporation. 2. CP15-558-000 9-22-2017 Elizabethtown Gas. 3. CP15-558-000 9-22-2017 The Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce. 4. CP15-558-000 9-26-2017 The Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation. Exempt: 1. CP16-454-000, CP16-455-000 9-19-2017 FERC Staff.1 2. CP16-454-000, CP16-455-000 9-19-2017 FERC Staff.2 3. CP15-544-000 9-20-2017 U.S. Senate.3 4. CP06-05-013 9-26-2017 U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer. 5. P-2305-036 9-27-2017 U.S. House Representative Mike Johnson. Dated: October 3, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21731 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2507-000; ER17-2508-000; ER17-2509-000; ER17-2510-000; ER17-2511-000.

    Applicants: RE Gaskell West LLC; RE Gaskell West 1 LLC, RE Gaskell West 3 LLC, RE Gaskell West 4 LLC, RE Gaskell West 5 LLC.

    Description: Amendment to September 19, 2017 RE Gaskell West LLC, et al. tariff filing(s).

    Filed Date: 9/22/17.

    Accession Number: 20170922-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-09-29 Reliability Services Phase 1b and 2 Amendment to be effective 2/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Original Service Agreement No. 4625, Queue No. AB1-164 to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-3-000.

    Applicants: Nylon Corporation of America.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application of Nylon Corporation of America for MBR Authorization to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-4-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits Interconnection Agreement SA No. 4578 to be effective 12/2/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-5-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Term of PacifiCorp Energy Construction Agmt ? Pavant 2 to be effective 12/11/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-6-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SCE and CDWR Amended Cherry Valley SA and Amended Crafton Hills SA to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-7-000.

    Applicants: Lamarr Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-8-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Rate Schedule Nos. 89 and 90 to be effective 12/31/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-9-000.

    Applicants: BE Alabama LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: MBR Tariff cancellation to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5243.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-10-000.

    Applicants: Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: MBR tariff cancellation to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-11-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1313R10 Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5245.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21676 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL17-95-000] California Public Utilities Commission, Transmission Agency of Northern California, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, M-S-R Public Power Agency, City of Santa Clara, California, State Water Contractors, Modesto Irrigation District, Northern California Power Agency v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on September 29, 2017, the California Public Utilities Commission, Transmission Agency of Northern California, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, M-S-R Public Power Agency, City of Santa Clara, California, doing business as Silicon Valley Power, State Water Contractors, Modesto Irrigation District, and Northern California Power Agency (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Respondent) pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), 825(e) (2012), and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2017), alleging that Respondent's proposed Transmission Owner (TO) rates substantially exceed its cost of service and may well exceed the revenue requirement comprising its last clean rate. Complainants request that the Commission order an investigation into Respondent's TO rates and exercise its authority to establish the earliest possible refund effective date, all as more fully explained in the complaint.

    Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contact for PG&E.

    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 (2017). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests, must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible online 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 19, 2017.

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21725 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-496-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on September 28, 2017, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed in Docket No. CP17-496-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-535-000, to offset and replace a segment of its 20-inch-diameter Line 1 pipeline in Linden and Woodbridge, New Jersey at a crossing of the Rahway River (Rahway River Pipe Replacement Project).

    Specifically, Texas Eastern proposes to install a new, approximate 1,250-foot section of 20-inch diameter pipeline beneath the Rahway River. The new segment will replace the existing segment of Line 1 pipeline, only a small portion of which will be removed.

    Texas Eastern states that the Rahway River Pipe Replacement Project is designed to ensure the continued safe operation of Texas Eastern's pipeline facilities. Texas Eastern asserts that the project will have no impact on the certificated capacity of its system, and there will be no abandonment or reduction in service to its customers. Texas Eastern estimates the cost of the project to be approximately $20 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, Director Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by telephone at (713) 627-4102, by facsimile at (713) 627-5947, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: October 4, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21832 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-2577-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; York Haven Power Company, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of York Haven Power Company, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 23, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21678 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-3-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Nylon Corporation of America

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Nylon Corporation of America`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 23, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21679 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-64-000.

    Applicants: Boardwalk Texas Intrastate, LLC.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2),(g): Petition for Rate Approval Under Optional Notice Procedures to be effective 10/1/2017; Filing Type: 1320.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 201709295085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/17.

    Docket Number: PR17-65-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Revised Rate Schedules for Transportation and Storage Service (D2016.9.68) to be effective 9/1/2017; Filing Type: 980.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 201709295234.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1094-000.

    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Interim Update of Fuel Retention Rates to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1095-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20170929 Housekeeping Filing to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1096-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20170928 Negotiated Rate to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1097-000.

    Applicants: Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.

    Description: Annual Operational Purchases and Sales Report of Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1098-000.

    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Annual Operational Purchases and Sales Report of Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1099-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Triad Project—Recourse Rate Filing to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1100-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of Maiden Lateral Surcharge 2017 to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1101-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (REGas 35433, 34955 to BP 36625, 36626) to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5093.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1102-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Update (APS Oct 2017) to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1103-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Virginia Soutside Expansion Project II Initial Rates to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1104-000.

    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: MNUS FRQ 2017 Filing to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1105-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2017 LNG Fuel Tracker Filing to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1106-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing Implementation of True-Up Settlement Filing.

    Filed Date: 9/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170928-5164.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1107-000.

    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: EPCR Semi-Annual Adjustment—Fall 2017 to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1108-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-29-17 to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5012.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1109-000.

    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-29-17 to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5027.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1110-000.

    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Transporter Use Gas Annual Adjustment—Fall 2017 to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5032.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1111-000.

    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-29-17 to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1112-000.

    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates Filing on 9-29-17 to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1113-000.

    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: ANR Antero Neg Rate Amendment to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1114-000.

    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Collierville Non-Conforming Agreement to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1115-000.

    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Vol. 2 Neg. and Non-Conf. Flexible PLS—Tenaska October Amendment to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1116-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated & Non-Conforming Service Agreements—RXP to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1117-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Service Agreements—Arsenal to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5093.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1118-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Pipeline Safety and Greenhouse Gas Cost Adjustment Mechanism—2017 to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1119-000.

    Applicants: Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P.

    Description: Transportation Retainage Adjustment Informational Filing of Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1120-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2—Connecticut Expansion Project to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1121-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Requirement November 2017 to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1122-000.

    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker 2017—Winter Season Rates to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1123-000.

    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: GT&C Section 42 Tracker Filing to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1124-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2017 Fuel Tracker Filing to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1125-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Annual Penalty Revenue Credit Report of WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1126-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Atlanta 8438 to various eff 10-1-17) to be effective10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1127-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Petrohawk 41455 to Texla 48549) to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1128-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: DETI—New Market (CP14-497) Transportation Service & Negotiated Rate Agreements to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1129-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20170929 Negotiated Rate to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1130-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: DETI—2017 Annual EPCA to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5198.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1131-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Connecticut Expansion Project—Recourse Rate Filing to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1132-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: DETI—2017 Annual TCRA to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1133-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Permanent Release—Talen 910663 to NJR 911437 to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5233.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1134-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Creditworthiness Update to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5235.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1135-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming—MarketLink_NJR to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5245.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1136-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Update List of Non-Conforming Service Agreements (MktLink_PPL to NJR) to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1137-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Lebanon Extension Negotiated Rates—Gulfport/Hamilton to be effective11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5262.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1138-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Early Termination/Modification of Serv Agmts and New Neg Rate Agmts to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5263.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1139-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: NRA—Permanent Release from Cargill to Macquarie 511007 to be effective10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5293.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1140-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Cherokee AGL—Replacement Shippers—Oct 2017 to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5292.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1141-000.

    Applicants: ConocoPhillips Company.

    Description: Petition of ConocoPhillips Company For Limited Waiver And Request For Expedited Action And Shortened Comment Period.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5305.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-598-001.

    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Par.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance to RP17-598 to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21677 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 7569-006] University of Notre Dame; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, 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: Application to amend 5 MW exemption from licensing.

    b. Project No.: 7569-006.

    c. Date Filed: April 24, 2017, and supplemented on September 21, 2017.

    d. Applicant: University of Notre Dame.

    e. Name of Project: South Bend Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the St. Joseph River in St. Joseph County, Indiana.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.104 (2016).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul A. Kempf, University of Notre Dame, 100 Facilities Building, Notre Dame, IN 46556, (574) 631-0142.

    i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Polardino, (202) 502-6437, or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-7569-006) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Project as Authorized: The South Bend project consists of: (1) An existing reservoir with a surface area of 150 acres and a storage capacity of 800 acre-feet at a pool elevation of 680 feet mean sea level; (2) an existing concrete and timber-crib dam approximately 18-feet-high and 435 feet long; (3) powerhouse containing one 50-kilowatt (kW) and two 890 kW generating units, for a total authorized capacity of 1,830 kW; and (4) appurtenant facilities.

    l. Description of Request: The exemptee requests approval to amend the exemption for the South Bend Hydroelectric Project with the following modifications to the project's facilities: ten 250 kilowatt (kW) units for a total generating capacity of 2,500 kW; a 390-foot-long conveyance channel, a coarse trash rack at the inlet to the conveyance channel; a secondary trash rack with a traveling brush; and a 1.5 mile long, 1.47 kilovolt transmission line buried from the hydro site to the tie-in point at the Notre Dame campus. The proposed modifications would require changes to the project's boundary.

    m. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    o. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    p. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading, the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21730 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. EL18-4-000] Notice of Petition for Partial Waiver; Indiana Municipal Power Agency, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

    Take notice that on October 3, 2017, pursuant to section 292.402 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules and Regulations,1 Indiana Municipal Power Agency (IMPA) on behalf of itself and its authorizing member municipal cities (Authorizing Members) that are nonregulated electric utilities, and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Commission) on behalf of those Authorizing Members subject to Indiana Commission rate regulation, filed a joint request for a partial waiver of certain obligations imposed on IMPA and its Authorizing Members through the Commission's regulations 2 implementing section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as amended,3 as more fully explained in the petition.

    1 18 CFR 292.402.

    2 18 CFR 292.303(a), .303(b).

    3 16 U.S.C. 824a-3.

    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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 24, 2017.

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21728 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1342-004; ER10-1886-007; ER17-742-001.

    Applicants: CP Bloom Wind LLC, CP Energy Marketing (US) Inc., Decatur Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to July 21, 2017 Notice of Change in Status and Limited Request for Privileged Treatment of CP Bloom Wind LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5321.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2564-007; ER10-2600-007; ER10-2289-007; EL17-9-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., UniSource Energy Development Company, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation.

    Description: Amendment to October 17, 2016 Notification of Changes in Status of Tucson Electric Power Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 9/25/17.

    Accession Number: 20170925-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2583-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Informational Filing of True-Up and Final Rellocation of Revenue Requirements for the Balanced Portfolio of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5330.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-12-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-10-02_Filing to revise NSP Attachment O for Abandoned Plant Incentive to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-13-000.

    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PPL Electric submits ECSA, SA No. 4809 with MAIT to be effective 10/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5298.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-14-000.

    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 27—Annual BPA-GTA Update 2017 to be effective 10/31/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5299.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-15-000.

    Applicants: Westwood Generation, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Westwood Generation, LLC Informational Filing and Request for Waiver to be effective 10/27/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5318.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-16-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwestern Public Service Company Formula Rate Revisions to be effective 10/20/2014.

    Filed Date: 10/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20171003-5032.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 3, 2017, Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21726 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-197-000.

    Applicants: Aspen Generating, LLC, Buchanan Generation, LLC, Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application of Aspen Generating, LLC, et al. for Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for a Shortened Comment Period.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5308.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-198-000.

    Applicants: West Penn Power Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Pursuant to Section 203(a)(1)(b) of the Federal Power Act of West Penn Power Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5310.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-199-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Pursuant to Section 203 (a)(1)(b) of the Federal Power Act of Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5311.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-200-000.

    Applicants: The Potomac Edison Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Pursuant to Section 203 (a)(1)(b) of the Federal Power Act of The Potomac Edison Company. Also submitted Attachments 2 and 3.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5315; 20170929-5316; 20170929-5320.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2214-003.

    Applicants: Zion Energy LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5178.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-954-003.

    Applicants: Calpine Mid Merit, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5170.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1589-001.

    Applicants: RockGen Energy, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-873-001.

    Applicants: Calpine New Jersey Generation, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5171.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-874-001.

    Applicants: Calpine Bethlehem, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5166.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-875-001.

    Applicants: Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5167.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2762-003.

    Applicants: Pine Bluff Energy, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2495-001.

    Applicants: Calpine New Jersey Generation, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5172.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2735-003.

    Applicants: Garrison Energy Center LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2566-000.

    Applicants: Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Control to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2575-000.

    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing re Planned Transfer and eTariff record (original ER05-1417) to be effective 6/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5204.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-60-000.

    Applicants: Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities of Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5297.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-61-000.

    Applicants: The Potomac Edison Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities of The Potomac Edison Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5298.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-62-000.

    Applicants: Pennsylvania Power Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities of Pennsylvania Power Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5299.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-63-000.

    Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities of Pennsylvania Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5300.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-64-000.

    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities of Monongahela Power Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5301.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-65-000.

    Applicants: Allegheny Generating Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities of Allegheny Generating Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5302.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-66-000.

    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities of Jersey Central Power & Light Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5303.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-67-000.

    Applicants: Metropolitan Edison Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities of Metropolitan Edison Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5304.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-68-000.

    Applicants: West Penn Power Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities of West Penn Power Company.

    Filed Date: 9/29/17.

    Accession Number: 20170929-5307.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21675 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-7-000] Lamarr Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Lamarr Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 23, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21729 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

    NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting October 10, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2017-10-10.

    NYISO Business Issues Committee Meeting October 11, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2017-10-11.

    NYISO Operating Committee Meeting October 12, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2017-10-12.

    NYISO Management Committee Meeting October 25, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2017-10-25.

    NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting October 26, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2017-10-26.

    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER17-2327.

    New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or [email protected].

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21732 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2154-007.

    Applicants: Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to June 30, 2017 Triennial Market Power Update for the Northeast Region of Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20171003-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2538-001.

    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Reactive Supply and Voltage Control Stuart Amendment to be effective10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20171003-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-17-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Request for Limited Tariff Waiver Request of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 10/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20171002-5338.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-18-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Navopache NITSA and NOA to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20171003-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES18-1-000.

    Applicants: Massachusetts Electric Company.

    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for Authorization to Issue Securities of Massachusetts Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 10/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20171003-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21727 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. DI17-11-000] Merchant Hydro Developers LLC; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.

    b. Docket No.: DI17-11-000.

    c. Date Filed: September 14, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Merchant Hydro Developers LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Pennsylvania Pump Storage Project.

    f. Location: The proposed Pennsylvania Pump Storage Project would be located near the Town of Shenandoah, in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(b) (2012).

    h. Applicant and Agent Contact: Merchant Hydro Developers LLC, c/o Adam R. Rousselle, Sr., 5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 45150, telephone: (267) 254-6107; email: [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Jennifer Polardino, (202) 502-6437, or email: [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number DI17-11-000.

    k. Description of Project: The proposed closed-loop Pennsylvania Pump Storage Project would consist of: (1) Two new roller-compacted concrete or rock fill dams; (2) two new upper reservoirs with a combined surface area of 470 acres and 11,050 acre-feet of usable storage capacity at a water surface elevation of about 1,750 feet mean sea level (msl); (3) a new lower reservoir, including an existing abandoned existing mine pit with a surface area of 135 acres and 13,200 acre-feet of usage storage capacity at a water surface elevation between 1,140-1,210 feet msl; (4) intakes; (5) a 50-foot-high, 175-foot-long, 100-foot-wide powerhouse with 2 to 3 generating units having a total installed capacity of 500 megawatts; (6) four 7-foot-diameter, 5,280-foot-long penstocks; (7) a transmission line connecting the generating units with PPL Electric Utilities' Wheelabrator Frackville Energy's electric distribution system and/or the Locust Wind Farm adjacent to the proposed project; and (8) appurtenant facilities. Merchant Hydro Developers LLC states that it will use only groundwater from an underground abandoned mine to initially charge and seasonally refill the upper reservoirs. The applicant proposes to transport groundwater to its upper reservoirs using underground pumping equipment and intakes.

    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.

    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above and in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTESTS”, and “MOTIONS TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Docket Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any Motion to Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.

    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21724 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0297; FRL-9963-91] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Safer Detergent Stewardship Initiative (SDSI) Program” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2261.04 and OMB Control No. 2070-0171, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2018. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0297, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Chen Wen, Chemistry, Economics & Sustainable Strategies Division (7409-M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8849; email address: [email protected].

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

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

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

    II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply to?

    Title: Safer Detergent Stewardship Initiative (SDSI) Program.

    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2261.04.

    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0171.

    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on March 31, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

    Abstract: The Safer Detergent Stewardship Initiative (SDSI) is a voluntary program administered by the EPA to offer resources and recognition to businesses involved in the transition to safer surfactants. Surfactants are a major ingredient in cleaning products such as detergents, cleaners, airplane deicers and fire-fighting foams. Safer surfactants are those that break down quickly to non-polluting compounds. Under SDSI, businesses that have fully transitioned to safer surfactants, or (for non-profits, academic institutions, etc.), and document outstanding efforts to encourage the use of safer surfactants, are granted Champion status. At this level, the participant is listed on the EPA SDSI Web site as a champion and may use a special logo in their literature to help explain their participation in the program. Businesses that commit to a full and timely transition to safer surfactants, and/or (for non-profits, academic institutions, etc.), document outstanding efforts to encourage the use of safer surfactants, are granted Partner status. This category provides recognition of significant accomplishments towards the use of safer surfactants. Partners will be listed on the EPA SDSI Web site and may be granted recognition as a Champion in the future if appropriate. This information collection addresses reporting activities that support the administration of the SDSI program.

    Responses to this collection of information are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.

    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are establishments or organizations engaged in formulating, producing, purchasing or distributing surfactants or products containing surfactants.

    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 4.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

    Estimated total annual burden hours: 40 hours.

    Estimated total annual costs: $2,788. This includes an estimated burden cost of $2,788 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

    III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 100 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's expectation, based on past experience, that significantly fewer respondents will apply for recognition as Champions or Partners in the next three years. This change is an adjustment.

    IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: September 22, 2017. Louise P. Wise, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21781 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316; FRL-9967-71] Tetrachlorvinphos; Notice of Receipt of Request To Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of a request by the registrant to voluntarily cancel their registrations of certain products containing the pesticide tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP). The request would not terminate the last TCVP products registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant this request at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant withdraws its request. If this request is granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registration has been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Khue Nguyen, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 703-347-0248; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Background on the Receipt of Request To Cancel

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from the registrant Bayer Healthcare, LLC to cancel certain TCVP product registrations. TCVP is an organophosphate insecticide registered for use on livestock and livestock premises and as pet collars and pet dust/powders in residential settings. In a letter dated July 7, 2017, Bayer Healthcare, LLC requested EPA to cancel certain pesticide product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit III. Specifically, Bayer stated that the pesticide product registrations identified in Table 1 were TCVP pet collar products that were never commercialized. Bayer noted that since the products identified in Table 1 were not in the channels of trade, no existing stocks provision is required for these products. The registrant's request will not terminate the last TCVP products registered in the United States.

    III. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant to cancel certain TCVP product registrations. The affected products and the registrant making the request are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit.

    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, EPA intends to issue an order canceling the affected registrations.

    Table 1—TCVP Product Registrations With Pending Requests for Cancellation Registration No. Product name Company 11556-164 Americare Rabon Flea & Tick Collar for Dogs Bayer Healthcare, LLC. 11556-165 Americare Rabon Flea & Tick Collar for Cats Bayer Healthcare, LLC.

    Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 2—Registrant Requesting Voluntary Cancellation EPA Company No. Company name and address 11556 Bayer Healthcare, LLC., P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-0390. IV. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register.

    Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:

    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or

    2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.

    The TCVP registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.

    V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Requests

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for product cancellation or use deletion should submit the withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the products(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling.

    VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. If the request for voluntary cancellation is granted, the Agency intends to publish the cancellation order in the Federal Register.

    In any order issued in response to this request for cancellation of product registrations, EPA proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit III.

    For this voluntary cancellation request, the registrant indicates that the products listed in Table 1 of Unit III are not in the channels of trade because they were never commercialized. Therefore, no existing stocks provision is needed. The cancellation will be effective on the date of publication of the cancellation order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the registrant will be prohibited from selling or distributing the products identified in Table 1 of Unit III., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 19, 2017. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21795 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879; FRL-9966-71] Environmental Modeling Public Meeting; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    An Environmental Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) will be held on Wednesday, October 18, 2017. This Notice announces the location and time for the meeting and provides tentative agenda topics. The EMPM provides a public forum for EPA and its stakeholders to discuss current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for pesticide risk assessments in a regulatory context.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on October 18, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or before October 20, 2017.

    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One Potomac Yard (South Building), First Floor Conference Center (S-1200), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Wente or Jessica Joyce, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-0001 and (703) 347-8191; fax number: (703) 305-0204; email address: [email protected] and [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting NAICS code 11 • Utilities NAICS code 22 • Professional, Scientific and Technical NAICS code 54 B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Background

    On a biannual interval, an Environmental Modeling Public Meeting is held for presentation and discussion of current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for risk assessment in a regulatory context. Meeting dates and abstract requests are announced through the “empmlist” forum on the LYRIS list server at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/.

    III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered Confidential Business Information (CBI). Requests to participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879, must be received on or before October 20, 2017.

    IV. Tentative Theme for the Meeting

    Assessing Exposure and Risk to Pollinators and Plants: The 2017 Fall EMPM will provide a forum for presentations on methods for assessing pesticide exposure and risk to pollinators and plants. Potential pollinator topics include novel risk assessment approaches and advances in model development. In regard to terrestrial and wetland plants, potential topics include the status of the EPA's new exposure model and investigations of variability inherent in seedling emergence and vegetative vigor toxicity studies. Updates on ongoing topics will also be provided, e.g., synergy, fumigant guidance, seed exposure modeling for terrestrial vertebrates, the Spatial Aquatic Model (SAM), and methods for interpreting pesticide surface water monitoring data.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 2, 2017. Marietta Echeverria, Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21784 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0023; FRL—9968-27-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs” (EPA ICR No. 0220.13, OMB Control No. 2040-0168) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension, which is currently approved through November 30, 2017. Public comments on the ICR renewal were requested via the Federal Register (82 FR 30861) published on July 3, 2017, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0023, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Hurld, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division (4502T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1269; fax number: 202-566-1349; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Section 404(g) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes states and tribes to assume the section 404 permit program for discharges of dredged or fill material into certain Waters of the U.S. This ICR covers the collection of information EPA needs to perform its program approval and oversight responsibilities and the state/tribe needs to implement its program.

    To request to assume the CWA section 404 permit program, states/tribes must demonstrate that they meet the statutory and regulatory requirements (40 CFR 233) for an approvable program. Specified information and documents must be submitted by the state/tribe to EPA to request assumption and must be sufficient to enable EPA to undertake a thorough analysis of the state/tribal program. Once the required information and documents are submitted and EPA has a complete assumption request package, the statutory time clock for EPA's decision to either approve or disapprove the state/tribe's assumption request starts. The information contained in the assumption request submission is provided to the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service and to the public for review and comment.

    States/tribes with assumed programs must be able to issue permits that assure compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Sufficient information must be provided in the application so that states/tribes and federal agencies reviewing the permit can evaluate, avoid, minimize and compensate for any anticipated impacts resulting from the proposed project. EPA's assumption regulations establish required elements that must be included in the state/tribe's permit application, so that sufficient information is available to make a thorough analysis of anticipated impacts. (40 CFR 233.30). These minimum information requirements generally reflect the information that must be submitted when applying for a section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

    EPA has an oversight role for assumed 404 permitting programs to ensure that state/tribal programs comply with applicable requirements and that state/tribal permit decisions adequately consider, avoid, minimize and compensate for anticipated impacts. States/tribes must evaluate their programs annually and submit the results in a report to EPA. EPA's assumption regulations establish minimum requirements for the annual report (40 CFR 233.52).

    The information included in the state/tribe's assumption request and the information included in a permit application is made available for public review and comment. The information included in the annual report to EPA is made available to the public. EPA does not make any assurances of confidentiality for this information. (CWA section 404(h); CWA section 404(j); 40 CFR 230.10, 233.20, 233.21, 233.34, and 233.50; and 33 CFR 325)

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: States/tribes requesting assumption of the CWA section 404 permit program; states/tribes with approved assumed programs; and permit applicants in states/tribes with assumed programs.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit (40 CFR 233).

    Estimated number of respondents: 2 states/tribes requesting program assumption; 11,900 permit applications; and 4 states/tribes that will submit an annual report.

    Frequency of response: Once for states/tribes to request assumption; annually for states/tribes submitting the annual report; and once for permit applicants when requesting a permit.

    Total estimated burden: 119,707 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: Costs to states for assumed Section 404 permit programs will vary widely by state and permit, however there are no capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 28,747 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects an increase in hours spent reviewing each permit.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21655 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK [Public Notice: 2017-6009] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Banks of the United States (EXIM), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    The Application for Short Term Letter of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy is used to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the transaction for EXIM assistance under its insurance program. EXIM customers are able to submit this form on paper or electronically.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV or by mail to Mardel West, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for EXIM assistance.

    The application tool can be reviewed at: https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib92-34.pdf.

    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-34 Application for Short-Term Letter of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy.

    OMB Number: 3048-0009.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Need and Use: This form is used by a financial institution (or broker acting on its behalf) to obtain approval for coverage of a short-term letter of credit. The information allows the EXIM staff to make a determination of the eligibility of the applicant and transaction for EXIM assistance under its programs.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 11.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 hr.

    Annual Burden Hours: 11.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: On occasion.

    Government Expenses:

    Reviewing Time per Year: 11 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $468 (time*wages).

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $561.

    Bassam Doughman, IT Specialist.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21769 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0944] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before December 11, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0944.

    Title: Cable Landing License Act—47 CFR 1.767; 1.768; Executive Order 10530.

    Form Number: Submarine Cable Landing License Application.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business and other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 38 respondents; 94 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.50 hour to 17 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, Quarterly reporting requirement, Recordkeeping requirement and third-party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in the Submarine Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39, Executive Order 10530, section 5(a), and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 155, 303(r), 309, 403.

    Total Annual Burden: 421 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $88,505.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a three-year extension of OMB Control No. 3060-0944. There are no changes in the number of respondents, responses, annual burden hours and annual costs.

    The information will be used by the Commission staff in carrying out its duties under the Submarine Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39, Executive Order 10530, section 5(a), and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The information collections are necessary largely to determine whether and under what conditions the Commission should grant a license for proposed submarine cables landing in the United States, including applicants that are, or are affiliated with, foreign carriers in the destination market of the proposed submarine cable. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 10530, the Commission has been delegated the President's authority under the Cable Landing License Act to grant cable landing licenses, provided that the Commission must obtain the approval of the State Department and seek advice from other government agencies as appropriate. If the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, applicants will not obtain the authorizations necessary to provide telecommunications services and facilities, and the Commission will be unable to carry out its mandate under the Cable Landing License Act and Executive Order 10530. In addition, without the collection, the United States would jeopardize its ability to fulfill the U.S. obligations as negotiated under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom Agreement because certain of these information collection requirements are imperative to detecting and deterring anticompetitive conduct. They are also necessary to preserve the Executive Branch agencies' and the Commission's ability to review foreign investments for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns.

    Federal Communications Commission. Sheryl D. Todd, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21756 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program. AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new matching program.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), this document announces the establishment of a computer matching program the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission” or “Agency”) and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will conduct with four non-Federal agencies. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of applicants to and subscribers of the Universal Service Fund (USF) Lifeline program, which is administered by USAC under the direction of the FCC. More information about this program is provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    DATES:

    Written comments are due on or before November 9, 2017. This computer matching program will commence on November 9, 2017 unless comments are received that require a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Mr. Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), Room 1-C216, FCC, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418-0217, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit. In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

    Participating Non-Federal Agencies

    • Colorado Office of Information Technology;

    • Mississippi Department of Human Services;

    • New Mexico Human Services Department; and

    • Utah Department of Workforce Services.

    Authority for Conducting the Matching Program

    47 U.S.C. 254; 47 CFR 54.400 et seq.; Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006-21, paras. 126-66 (2016) (2016 Lifeline Modernization Order).

    Purpose(s)

    In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, the FCC required USAC to develop and operate a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (National Verifier) to improve efficiency and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program. The stated purpose of the National Verifier is “to increase the integrity and improve the performance of the Lifeline program for the benefit of a variety of Lifeline participants, including Lifeline providers, subscribers, states, community-based organizations, USAC, and the Commission.” 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006, para. 126. To help determine whether Lifeline applicants and subscribers are eligible for Lifeline benefits, the Order contemplates that a USAC-operated Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED) will communicate with information systems and databases operated by other Federal and State agencies. Id. at 4011-2, paras. 135-7.

    Categories of Individuals

    The categories of individuals whose information is involved in this matching program include, but are not limited to, those individuals (residing in a single household) who have applied for Lifeline benefits; are currently receiving Lifeline benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for Lifeline benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for Lifeline benefits; are individuals who have received Lifeline benefits; or are individuals acting on behalf of an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) who have enrolled individuals in the Lifeline program.

    Categories of Records

    The categories of records involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, a Lifeline applicant or subscriber's full name; physical and mailing addresses; partial Social Security number or Tribal ID number; date of birth; qualifying person's full name (if qualifying person is different from subscriber); qualifying person's physical and mailing addresses; qualifying person's partial Social Security number or Tribal ID number, and qualifying person's date of birth. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the source agencies, which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in a Lifeline-qualifying assistance program.

    System(s) of Records

    The USAC records shared as part of this matching program reside in the Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB-1, Lifeline Program, a notice of which the FCC published at 82 FR 38686 (Aug. 15, 2017). The August 15, 2017 notice is an update to this system of records that reflects the new uses involved in operating this matching program and it modified the system of records, notice of which the FCC previously had published at 78 FR 73535 (Dec. 6, 2013).

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21757 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination, 10403—First State Bank, Cranford, New Jersey

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10403—First State Bank, Cranford, New Jersey (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of First State Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective October 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: October 4, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21708 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10368—First Heritage Bank, Snohomish, Washington

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10368—First Heritage Bank, Snohomish, Washington (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of First Heritage Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective October 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: October 4, 2017. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21707 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0157; Docket 2017-0053; Sequence 6] Submission for OMB Review; Architect-Engineer Qualifications (Standard Form 330) AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement for the Architect-Engineer Qualifications form, SF 330. A notice was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2017. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before November 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000-0157. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0157, SF 330.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0157, SF 330,” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Mr. Poe/IC 9000-0157.

    Instructions: Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Curtis E. Glover Sr. Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, GSA, at 202-501-1448, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Federal agencies use the Standard Form (SF) 330 to obtain information from architect-engineer (A-E) firms about their professional qualifications. Federal agencies select firms for A-E contracts on the basis of professional qualifications as required by 40 U.S.C. Chapter 11, Selection of Architects Engineers, and Part 36 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

    SF 330, Part I is used by all executive agencies to obtain information from architect-engineer firms interested in a particular project. The information on the form is reviewed by a selection panel to assist in the selection of the most qualified architect-engineer firm to perform the specific project. The form is designed to provide a uniform method for architect-engineer firms to submit information on experience, personnel, and capabilities of the architect-engineer firm to perform, along with information on the consultants they expect to collaborate with on the specific project.

    SF 330, Part II is used by all executive agencies to obtain general uniform information about a firm's experience in architect-engineering projects. Architect-engineer firms are encouraged to update the form annually. The information obtained on this form is used to determine if a firm should be solicited for architect-engineer projects.

    The number of new Architectural Services contracts (NAICS code 541310) awarded in FPDS-NG for FY 2016 was 3,256. The public burden hours have been reduced due to the reduction in the number of new Architectural Services contracts awarded in FY 2016 listed in FPDS-NG.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 3,256.

    Responses per Respondent: 4.

    Total Responses: 13,024.

    Hours per Response: 29.

    Total Burden Hours: 377,696.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0157, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, SF 330, in all correspondence.

    Dated: September 28, 2017. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21719 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-FY-1078; Docket No. CDC-0920-0088] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) Alumni Assessment.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before December 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0088 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: Submit all Federal comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) Alumni Assessment (OMB Control No. 0920-1078, Exp. 08/31/2018)—Revision—Office for State, Tribal Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) works to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. CDC strives to fulfill this mission, in part, through a competent and capable public health workforce. One mechanism to developing the public health workforce is through training programs like the Public Health Associate Program (PHAP).

    The mission of PHAP is to train and provide experiential learning to early career professionals who contribute to the public health workforce. PHAP targets recent graduates with bachelors or masters degrees who are beginning a career in public health. Each year, CDC enrolls a new cohort of up to 200 associates in the program. Associates are CDC employees who complete two-year assignments in a host site (i.e., a state, tribal, local, or territorial health department or non-profit organization). Host sites design their associates' assignments to meet their agency's unique needs while also providing on-the-job experience that prepare associates for future careers in public health. At host sites, members of the public health workforce (referred to as “host site supervisors”) mentor associates. PHAP's goal is that alumni will seek employment within the public health system (i.e., federal, state, tribal, local, or territorial health agencies, or non-governmental organizations), focusing on public health, population health, or health care.

    CDC began ongoing systematic PHAP evaluation efforts in 2014. Evaluation priorities focus on continuously learning about program processes and activities to improve the program's quality and documenting program outcomes to demonstrate impact and inform decision making about future program direction.

    The purpose of this project is to collect information from two key stakeholder groups (host site supervisors and alumni) via two distinct surveys. The information collected will enable CDC to: (a) Learn about program processes and activities to improve the program's quality, and (b) document program outcomes to demonstrate impact and inform decision making about future program direction. CDC may publish the results of these surveys in peer-reviewed journals and/or in non-scientific publications such as practice reports and/or fact sheets. Project revisions include the following adjustments: (1) Expansion from one data collection instrument to two (both of which will inform improvements to the Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) and document evidence of quality and value); and (2) name change to reflect this adjustment from “Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) Alumni Assessment” to “Public Health Associate Program (PHAP): Assessment of Quality and Value.”

    The respondent universe is comprised of PHAP host site supervisors and PHAP alumni. CDC will administer both surveys electronically and provide a link to the survey Web sites in the email invitation. CDC will deploy the PHAP Host Site Supervisor survey every year to all active PHAP host site supervisors. The total estimated burden is 20 minutes per respondent per survey.

    CDC will administer the PHAP Alumni Survey at three different time points (1 year post-graduation, 3 years post-graduation, and 5 years post-graduation) to PHAP alumni. Assessment questions will remain consistent at each administration (i.e., 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years post-PHAP graduation). However, CDC will update the language for each survey administration to reflect the appropriate time period. The total estimated burden is 8 minutes per respondent per survey. The total annualized estimated burden is 213 hours. There are no costs to respondents except their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • (in hours)
  • PHAP Host Site Supervisors PHAP Host Site Supervisor Survey 400 1 20/60 133 PHAP Alumni PHAP Alumni Survey 600 1 8/60 80 Total 213
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21753 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17BAW; Docket No. CDC-2017-0083] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (2015-2020) Evaluation.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before December 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0083 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (2015-2020) Evaluation—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP), requests a three-year OMB approval for a new collection.

    The CDC is the primary Federal agency for protecting health and promoting quality of life through the prevention and control of disease, injury, and disability. CDC is committed to programs that reduce the health and economic consequences of the leading causes of death and disability, thereby ensuring a long, productive, healthy life for all people.

    Stroke remains a leading cause of serious, long-term disability and is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and accidents. Estimates indicate that approximately 795,000 people suffer a first-ever or recurrent stroke each year with more than 130,000 deaths annually. Although there have been significant advances in preventing and treating stroke, the rising prevalence of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity has increased the relative risk for stroke, especially in African American populations. Moreover, stroke's lifetime direct cost of health care and indirect cost of lost productivity is staggering and imposes a substantial societal economic burden. Coverdell-funded state programs are in the forefront of developing and implementing system-change efforts to improve emergency response systems, enhance the quality of care for stroke, and improve transitions across stroke systems of care, including pre-event; transitions from EMS to acute care in hospitals; and transitions from hospitals to home, rehabilitation, stroke specialist care, and primary care providers.

    When Congress directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (PCNASP) in 2001, CDC intended to monitor trends in stroke and stroke care, with the ultimate mission of improving the quality of care for stroke patients in the United States. Since 2015, CDC has funded and provided technical assistance to nine state health departments to develop comprehensive stroke systems of care. A comprehensive system of care improves quality of care by creating seamless transitions for individuals experiencing stroke. In such a system, pre-hospital providers, in-hospital providers, and early post-hospital providers coordinate patient hand-offs and ensure continuity of care. CDC contracted with RTI International to conduct a national evaluation of the state health departments awarded grants in 2015 to assess their implementation in their state-based contexts and progress toward short- and intermediate-term outcomes.

    CDC and RTI International propose to collect information from all nine funded PCNASP grantees to gain insight into the effectiveness of implementation of their quality improvement strategies, development (and use) of a data integrated management system, and partner collaboration in building comprehensive state-wide stroke systems of care. The information collection will focus on describing PCNASP specific contributions to effective state-based stroke systems of care and the costs associated with this work.

    Two components of the information collection include: (1) Program implementation cost data collection from program partners using a cost and resource utilization tool; and (2) telephone interviews with key program stakeholders, such as the PCNASP principal investigator, program manager, quality improvement specialist, data analyst/program evaluator, and partner support staff. Cost data collection will focus on a stratified sample of partners' cumulative spending to support PCNASP activities, spending by reporting period, and spending associated with specific PCNASP strategies related to building comprehensive state-wide stroke systems of care. Interview questions will target how each grantee implemented its strategies, challenges encountered and how they were overcome, factors that facilitated implementation, lessons learned along the way, and observed outcomes and improvements.

    The information to be collected does not currently exist for large scale, statewide programs that employ multiple combinations of strategies led by state public health departments to build comprehensive stroke systems of care. The insights to be gained from this data collection will be critical to improving immediate efforts and achieving the goals of spreading and replicating state-level strategies that are proven programmatically and are cost-effective in contributing to a higher quality of care for stroke patients.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • (in hours)
  • Partner Program Manager Cost Resource and Utilization Tool 205 2 2 820 Principal Investigator Telephonic Interviews 9 1 1 9 Grantee Program Manager Telephonic Interviews 9 1 1 9 Quality Improvement Specialist Telephonic Interviews 9 1 1 9 Data Analyst/Program Evaluator Telephonic Interviews 9 1 1 9 Partner Support Staff Telephonic Interviews 18 1 1 18 Total 874
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21751 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-1071; Docket No. CDC-2017-0087] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks to obtain Office of Management and Budget approval of a generic information collection request to collect qualitative feedback on our service delivery.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before December 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0087 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov. Please note: Submit all Federal comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (OMB Control Number 0920-1071, Expires 6/30/2018)—Extension—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    CDC/NCEZID is seeking a three-year extension of OMB Control Number 0920-1071 to continue collecting routine customer feedback on agency service delivery.

    Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (hereafter the “Agency”) seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect qualitative feedback on our service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.

    This collection of information is necessary to enable the Agency to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with our commitment to improving service delivery. The information collected from our customers and stakeholders will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience with the Agency's programs. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    Since gaining approval in June 2015, NCEZID has utilized 16,800 responses and 2,029, burden hours for nine separate information collection projects.

    There is no cost to respondents other than the time to participate.

    Authorizing legislation comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241).

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • General public Online surveys 1,500 1 30/60 750 Focus groups 800 1 2 1,600 In-person surveys 1,000 1 30/60 500 Usability testing 1,500 1 30/60 750 Customer comment cards 1,000 1 15/60 250 Total 3,850
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21752 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17AZI; Docket No. CDC-2017-0075] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed study titled “Understanding Decisions and Barriers about PrEP Use and Uptake among Men Who Have Sex with Men.” This study will provide insight on individual and community level PrEP-related decision-making, and identify barriers and facilitators to successful PrEP initiation and PrEP acceptability.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before December 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0075 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: Submit all Federal comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Understanding Decisions and Barriers about PrEP Use and Uptake among Men Who Have Sex With Men—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    This project involves original, formative research toward improving the uptake and adherence necessary to achieve efficacious levels of protection offered by pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among the most affected population. HIV incidence and prevalence are higher among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) than any other risk group in the U.S. Approximately half of all diagnosed HIV infections are among gay, bisexual, and other MSM. The FDA-approved PrEP regimen, daily Tenofovir/emtricitabine (aka Truvada®), has shown greater than 90% efficacy in reducing HIV infections among MSM when taken in accordance with its prescribed daily schedule. In 2014, CDC published clinical practice guidelines for the use of PrEP in high-risk populations, and began national promotion of PrEP as an effective HIV prevention strategy for MSM. While hailed as an HIV-prevention “game-changer,” in reality PrEP uptake has been slow. Some studies report a wide range in the percentages of MSM (28-81%) interested in PrEP. In addition, other studies indicate that specific cities have alarmingly low rates of PrEP uptake (for example, the estimate for Atlanta is 2%). Moreover, recent survey findings have shown that less than 1 in 10 MSM on PrEP are adherent to their PrEP regimen; adherence is necessary to optimize efficacy.

    In order to develop effective programs that increase PrEP uptake among MSM at greatest risk for HIV, studies are needed to better understand the decisions men make about their HIV prevention needs. Qualitative methods will be used to explore in-depth the “Whys” and “How's” of MSM's decisions to refuse or use PrEP, and barriers and challenges to successfully undertake a PrEP medication regimen. Quantitative methods will be used to understand the HIV risk behavior context, attitudes towards PrEP, health seeking behavior, and acceptability of new modes of PrEP delivery (that differ from current recommendation of daily PrEP and that are in development or discussion) and emerging biomedical HIV prevention options.

    The purpose of this research is to explore decisions, barriers, and facilitators about PrEP use among MSM: (1) Who were offered PrEP but refused it; (2) who were interested in or started a PrEP regimen but did not follow through; and (3) who are eligible for PrEP per CDC guidelines (report condomless anal sex within last 3 months).

    This study will provide insight on individual and community level PrEP-related decision-making, and identify barriers and facilitators to successful PrEP initiation and PrEP acceptability. Findings will improve programming, in line with the CDC Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention goal of high-impact prevention to reduce HIV infections in the Unite States. Findings will also assist the CDC and frontline public health programs in identifying and designing programs and intervention approaches that encourage, support, and maintain appropriate PrEP uptake among eligible MSM and anticipate future HIV prevention needs, including anticipated changes in PrEP delivery.

    The total annual burden hours are 335. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time, travel costs, and the total estimated annual burden hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • General Public—Adults Screener #1 600 1 5/60 50 General Public—Adults Consent Forms 300 1 1/60 5 General Public—Adults In-depth Interview Guide 60 1 45/60 45 General Public—Adults Focus Group Moderator Guide 60 1 1 60 General Public—Adults Eligibility verification (verification of continuing eligibility) 300 1 5/60 25 General Public—Adults Behavioral Assessment 300 1 30/60 150 Total 335
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21750 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Re-designation of the Delivery Area for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Final Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This final notice advises the public that the Indian Health Service (IHS) has decided to expand the geographic boundaries of the Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area (PRCDA) for the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservation at Indian Township (Passamaquoddy at Indian Township or Tribe) in the State of Maine.

    DATES:

    October 10, 2017.

    Inspection of Public Comments: The IHS published a Federal Register Notice entitled, “Notice To Propose the Re-Designation of the Service Delivery Area for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township,” on March 8, 2017 (82 FR 12968), and did not receive any comments regarding the notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terri Schmidt, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: 10E85C, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone (301) 443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Passamaquoddy PRCDA previously covered Aroostook and Washington Counties in the State of Maine. The expanded PRCDA for the Tribe's reservation at Indian Township includes Hancock County in the State of Maine. This notice only relates to the expansion of the Tribe's PRCDA for the Indian Township reservation.

    The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) to the Passamaquoddy Tribe. The Passamaquoddy Tribe has two reservations: Indian Township and Pleasant Point. The PRCDA for the Indian Township reservation is Aroostook County, Maine, and Washington County, Maine. The PRCDA for the Pleasant Point reservation is Washington County, Maine, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, Maine.

    Background: The IHS currently provides services under regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A through C. Subpart C defines a PRCDA, formerly referred to as a Contract Health Service Delivery Area or Purchased/Referred Care Service Delivery Area, as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the area. Residence in a PRCDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, creates no legal entitlement to PRC, only potential eligibility for services. Services needed but not available at an IHS or Tribal facility are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the person's relative medical priority, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.

    As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRCDA shall consist of a county that includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties that have a common boundary with the reservation, 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRCDA, the Secretary may from time to time, re-designate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRCDA. The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any re-designation is made. The criteria are as follows:

    (1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;

    (2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;

    (3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and

    (4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC, 42 CFR 136.22(b).

    Additionally, the regulations require that any re-designation of a PRCDA must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). See 42 CFR 136.22(c). In compliance with this requirement, we are publishing this final notice.

    The Passamaquoddy Tribe is a federally recognized Tribe with two separate reservations, Indian Township and Pleasant Point, located approximately 50 miles apart. Each respective reservation elects its own governing body and each reservation has a separate PRCDA. The Indian Township reservation of the Passamaquoddy Tribe has a PRCDA consisting of Aroostook and Washington Counties in the State of Maine. The PRCDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservation at Pleasant Point is Washington County, Maine, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, Maine. The IHS adopted a PRCDA for each of the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservations for the purposes of administering benefits under the IHS PRC program. Thus, members of the Tribe who reside outside of Aroostook and Washington Counties do not reside within the PRCDA of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and they are currently not eligible for PRC services from the Tribe.

    The Passamaquoddy Tribe has a significant number of members who are not residents of Aroostook and Washington Counties. According to Tribal estimates, 257 enrolled Passamaquoddy members reside in Hancock County in the State of Maine and remain actively involved with the Tribe, but they are not currently eligible for PRC services. The Tribe provides direct services to its members by operating a clinic in Washington County.

    Under 42 CFR 136.23, those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation but reside within a PRCDA must be either members of the Tribe or maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, in applying the aforementioned PRCDA re-designation criteria required by operative regulations, the following findings are made:

    1. By expanding, the Tribe estimates the current eligible population will be increased by 257.

    2. The Tribe has determined that these 257 individuals are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe.

    3. The expanded area, Hancock County, Maine, maintains a common boundary with Washington County, Maine, the county in which the Tribe's Indian Township reservation is located.

    4. The Tribe will use its existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to the expanded population. No additional financial resources will be allocated by the IHS to the Tribe to provide services to Tribal members residing in Hancock County.

    The IHS did not receive comments in response to the notice proposing to expand the Tribe's PRCDA. Accordingly, the purpose of this Federal Register notice is to notify the public that the IHS has decided to expand the PRCDA of the Passamaquoddy Tribe's Indian Township reservation to include Hancock County in the State of Maine. This final notice will expand the current PRCDA for the Tribe's reservation at Indian Township to include Hancock County in the State of Maine. This final notice does not change or expand the PRCDA for the Tribe's Pleasant Point reservation. No additional financial resources will be allocated by the IHS to the Tribe to provide services to Tribal members residing in Hancock County in the State of Maine.

    Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Areas Tribe/reservation County/state Ak Chin Indian Community Pinal, AZ. Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas Polk, TX.1 Alaska Entire State.2 Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Hot Springs, WY, Fremont, WY, Sublette, WY. Aroostook Band of Micmacs Aroostook, ME.3 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana Daniels, MT, McCone, MT, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT, Valley, MT. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin Ashland, WI, Iron, WI. Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Chippewa, MI. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana Glacier, MT, Pondera, MT. Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah—Permanently Closed on May 17, 1984 (4). Burns Paiute Tribe Harney, OR. California Entire State, except for the counties listed in the footnote.5 Catawba Indian Nation All Counties in SC,6 Cabarrus, NC, Cleveland, NC, Gaston, NC, Mecklenburg, NC, Rutherford, NC, Union, NC. Cayuga Nation Alleghany, NY,7 Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Haakon, SD, Meade, SD, Perkins, SD, Potter, SD, Stanley, SD, Sully, SD, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana Chouteau, MT, Hill, MT, Liberty, MT. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana St. Mary Parish, LA. Cocopah Tribe of Arizona Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Coeur D'Alene Tribe Benewah, ID, Kootenai, ID, Latah, ID, Spokane, WA, Whitman, WA. Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California La Paz, AZ, Riverside, CA, San Bernardino, CA, Yuma, AZ. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Flathead, MT, Lake, MT, Missoula, MT, Sanders, MT. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Klickitat, WA, Lewis, WA, Skamania, W,8 Yakima, WA. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon Benton, OR,9 Clackamas, OR, Lane, OR, Lincoln, OR, Linn, OR, Marion, OR, Multnomah, OR, Polk, OR, Tillamook, OR, Washington, OR, Yamhill, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Grays Harbor, WA, Lewis, WA, Thurston, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Chelan, WA,10 Douglas, WA, Ferry, WA, Grant, WA, Lincoln, WA, Okanogan, WA, Stevens, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Coos, OR,11 Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Lane, OR, Lincoln, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah Nevada, Juab, UT, Toole, UT. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Marion, OR, Multnomah, OR, Polk, OR,12 Tillamook, OR, Washington, OR, Yamhill, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Umatilla, OR, Union, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Clackamas, OR, Jefferson, OR, Linn, OR, Marion, OR, Wasco, OR. Coquille Indian Tribe Coos, OR, Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Jackson, OR, Lane, OR. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Allen Parish, LA, Elton, LA.13 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians Coos, OR,14 Deshutes, OR, Douglas, OR, Jackson, OR, Josephine, OR, Klamath, OR, Lane, OR. Cowlitz Indian Tribe Clark, WA, Cowlitz, WA, King, WA, Lewis, WA, Peirce, WA, Skamania, WA, Thurston, WA, Columbia, OR,15 Kittitas, WA, Wahkiakum, WA. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hand, SD, Hughes, SD, Hyde, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Crow Tribe of Montana Big Horn, MT, Carbon, MT, Treasure, MT,16 Yellowstone, MT, Big Horn, WY, Sheridan, WY. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Cherokee, NC, Graham, NC, Haywood, NC, Jackson, NC, Swain, NC. Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Hot Springs, WY, Fremont, WY, Sublette, WY. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Moody, SD. Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI, Marinette, WI, Oconto, WI. Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana Blaine, MT, Phillips, MT. Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon Nevada, Malheur, OR. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California and Nevada Nevada, Mohave, AZ, San Bernardino, CA. Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan Antrim, MI,17 Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI, Grand Traverse, MI, Leelanau, MI, Manistee, MI. Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan Delta, MI, Menominee, MI. Haskell Indian Health Center Douglas, KS.18 Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ. Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Adams, WI,19 Clark, WI, Columbia, WI, Crawford, WI, Dane, WI, Eau Claire, WI, Houston, MN, Jackson, WI, Juneau, WI, La Crosse, WI, Marathon, WI, Monroe, WI, Sauk, WI, Shawano, WI, Vernon, WI, Wood, WI. Hoh Indian Tribe Jefferson, WA. Hopi Tribe of Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Aroostook, ME.20 Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Yavapai, AZ. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Doniphan, KS, Richardson, NE. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Grand Parish, LA,21 LaSalle Parish, LA, Rapides, LA. Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico Archuleta, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM. Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Kane, UT. Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation Pend Oreille, WA, Spokane, WA. Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan Baraga, MI, Houghton, MI, Ontonagon, MI. Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Maverick, TX.22 Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas Brown, KS, Jackson, KS. Klamath Tribes Klamath, OR.23 Koi Nation of Northern California (formerly known as Lower Lake Rancheria, California) Lake, CA, Sonoma, CA.24 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Boundary, ID. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Sawyer, WI. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin Iron, WI, Oneida, WI, Vilas, WI. Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan Gogebic, MI. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan Kent, MI,25 Muskegon, MI, Newaygo, MI, Oceana, MI, Ottawa, MI, Manistee, MI, Mason, MI, Wexford, MI, Lake, MI. Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan Alcona, MI,26 Alger, MI, Alpena, MI, Antrim, MI, Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI, Cheboygan, MI, Chippewa, MI, Crawford, MI, Delta, MI, Emmet, MI, Grand Traverse, MI, Iosco, MI, Kalkaska, MI, Leelanau, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Manistee, MI, Missaukee, MI, Montmorency, MI, Ogemaw, MI, Oscoda, MI, Otsego, MI, Presque Isle, MI, Schoolcraft, MI, Roscommon, MI, Wexford, MI. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hughes, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Lower Elwha Tribal Community Clallam, WA. Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Redwood, MN, Renville, MN. Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation Whatcom, WA. Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation Clallam, WA. Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe New London, CT.27 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Barnstable, MA, Bristol, MA, Norfolk, MA, Plymouth, MA, Suffolk, MA.28 Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan Allegan, MI,29 Barry, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Langlade, WI, Menominee, WI, Oconto, WI, Shawano, WI. Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico Chaves, NM, Lincoln, NM, Otero, NM. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Hendry, FL. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) Itasca, MN, Koochiching, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Fond du Lac Band Carlton, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Grand Portage Band Cook, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Leech Lake Band Beltrami, MN, Cass, MN, Hubbard, MN, Itasca, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Mille Lacs Band Aitkin, MN, Kanebec, MN, Mille Lacs, MN, Pine, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, White Earth Band Becker, MN, Clearwater, MN, Mahnomen, MN, Norman, MN, Polk, MN. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Attala, MS, Jasper, MS,30 Jones, MS, Kemper, MS, Leake, MS, Neshoba, MS, Newton, MS, Noxubee, MS Scott, MS,31 Winston, MS. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut Fairfield, CT, Hartford, CT, Litchfield, CT, Middlesex, CT, New Haven, CT, New London, CT, Tolland, CT, Windham, CT. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe King, WA, Pierce, WA. Narragansett Indian Tribe Washington, RI.32 Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah Apache, AZ, Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM, Coconino, AZ, Kane, UT, McKinley, NM, Montezuma, CO, Navajo, AZ, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT, Socorro, NM, Valencia, NM. Nevada Entire State.33 Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater, ID, Idaho, ID, Latah, ID, Lewis, ID, Nez Perce, ID. Nisqually Indian Tribe Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Nooksack Indian Tribe Whatcom, WA. Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana Big Horn, MT, Carter, MT,34 Rosebud, MT. Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation Box Elder, UT.35 Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Pottawatomi, Michigan Allegan, MI,36 Barry, MI, Branch, MI, Calhoun, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Oglala Sioux Tribe Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Custer, SD, Dawes, NE, Fall River, SD, Jackson, SD,37 Mellette, SD, Pennington, SD, Shannon, SD, Sheridan, NE, Todd, SD. Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM. Oklahoma Entire State.38 Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Burt, NE, Cuming, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE. Oneida Nation Brown, WI, Outagamie, WI. Oneida Nation of New York Chenango, NY, Cortland, NY, Herkimer, NY, Madison, NY, Oneida, NY, Onondaga, NY. Onondaga Nation Onondaga, NY. Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Iron, UT,39 Millard, UT, Sevier, UT, Washington, UT. Pamunkey Indian Tribe Caroline, Hanover, Henrico, King William, King and Queen, New Kent, Richmond (Independent City).40 Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Pima, AZ.41 Passamaquoddy Tribe Aroostook, ME,42 43 Hancock, ME,44 Washington, ME. Penobscot Nation Aroostook, ME,45 Penobscot, ME. Poarch Band of Creeks Baldwin, AL,46 Elmore, AL, Escambia, AL, Mobile, AL, Monroe, AL, Escambia, FL. Pokagon Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana Allegan, MI,47 Berrien, MI, Cass, MI, Elkhart, IN, Kosciusko, IN, La Porte, IN, Marshall, IN, St. Joseph, IN, Starke, IN, Van Buren, MI. Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Boyd, NE,48 Burt, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, NE, Hall, NE, Holt, NE, Knox, NE, Lancaster, NE, Madison, NE, Platte, NE, Pottawatomie, IA, Sarpy, NE, Stanton, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Kitsap, WA. Prairie Band of Pottawatomi Nation Jackson, KS. Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Goodhue, MN. Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico Cibola, NM. Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Torrance, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM, Sandoval, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico Taos, NM. Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico Colfax, NM, Taos, NM. Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation King, WA, Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Arizona and California Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Quinault Indian Nation Grays Harbor, WA, Jefferson, WA. Rapid City, South Dakota Pennington, SD.49 Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Bayfield, WI. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota Beltrami, MN, Clearwater, MN, Koochiching, MN, Lake of the Woods, MN, Marshall, MN, Pennington, MN, Polk, MN, Roseau, MN. Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Gregory, SD, Lyman, SD, Mellette, SD, Todd, SD, Tripp, SD. Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Richardson, NE. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Tama, IA. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Arenac, MI,50 Clare, MI, Isabella, MI, Midland, MI, Missaukee, MI. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Franklin, NY, St. Lawrence, NY. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Samish Indian Nation Clallam, WA,51 Island, WA, Jefferson, WA, King, WA, Kitsap, WA, Pierce, WA, San Juan, WA, Skagit, WA, Snohomish, WA, Whatcom, WA. San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Cochise, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Pinal, AZ. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona Coconino, AZ, San Juan, UT. Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska Bon Homme, SD, Knox, NE. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Snohomish, WA, Skagit, WA. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan Alger, MI,52 Chippewa, MI, Delta, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Marquette, MI, Schoolcraft, MI. Seminole Tribe of Florida Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Glades, FL, Hendry, FL. Seneca Nation of Indians Alleghany, NY, Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota Scott, MN. Shinnecock Indian Nation Nassau, NY,53 Suffolk, NY. Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation Pacific, WA. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Bannock, ID, Bingham, ID, Caribou, ID, Lemhi, ID,54 Power, ID. Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota Codington, SD, Day, SD, Grant, SD, Marshall, SD, Richland, ND, Roberts, SD, Sargent, ND, Traverse, MN. Skokomish Indian Tribe Mason, WA. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah Tooele, UT. Snoqualmie Indian Tribe King, WA,55 Snohomish, WA, Pierce, WA, Island, WA, Mason, WA. Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI. Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado Archuleta, CO, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, San Juan, NM. Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota Benson, ND, Eddy, ND, Nelson, ND, Ramsey, ND. Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation Ferry, WA, Lincoln, WA, Stevens, WA. Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation Mason, WA. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Barron, WI, Burnett, WI, Pine, MN, Polk, WI, Washburn, WI. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota Adams, ND, Campbell, SD, Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Emmons, ND, Grant, ND, Morton, ND, Perkins, SD, Sioux, ND, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington Snohomish, WA. Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin Menominee, WI, Shawano, WI. Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation Kitsap, WA. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Skagit, WA. Tejon Indian Tribe Kern, CA.56 Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota Dunn, ND, Mercer, ND, McKenzie, ND, McLean, ND, Mountrail, ND, Ward, ND. Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pima, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Genesee, NY, Erie, NY, Niagara, NY. Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Gila, AZ. Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana Divide, ND,57 McKenzie, ND, Williams, ND, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT. Tulalip Tribes of Washington Snohomish, WA. Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe Avoyelles, LA, Rapides, LA.58 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota Rolette, ND. Tuscarora Nation Niagara, NY. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah Carbon, UT, Daggett, UT, Duchesne, UT, Emery, UT, Grand, UT, Rio Blanco, CO, Summit, UT, Uintah, UT, Utah, UT, Wasatch, UT. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Apache, AZ, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Dukes, MA,59 Barnstable, MA, Bristol, MA, Norfolk, MA, Plymouth, MA, Suffolk, MA.60 Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California Nevada, California except for the counties listed in footnote. White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Wilton Rancheria, California Sacramento, CA.61 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Dakota, NE, Dixon, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Bon Homme, SD, Boyd, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, SD, Gregory, SD, Hutchinson, SD, Knox, NE. Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona Yavapai, AZ. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Yavapai, AZ. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas El Paso, TX.62 Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico Apache, AZ, Cibola, NM, McKinley, NM, Valencia, NM. 1 Public Law 100-89, Restoration Act for Ysleta Del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas establishes service areas for “members of the Tribe” by sections 101(3) and 105(a) for the Pueblo and sections 201(3) and 206(a) respectively. 2 Entire State of Alaska is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(1)). 3 Aroostook Band of Micmacs was recognized by Congress on November 26, 1991, through the Aroostook Band of Micmac Settlement Act. Aroostook County, ME, was defined as the SDA. 4 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah (Pub. L. 88-358). The Brigham Intermountain School Health Center was renamed to Intermountain Inter-Tribal School in 1974 and was permanently closed on May 17, 1984. 5 Entire State of California, excluding the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Kern, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, and Ventura, is designated a CHSDA (25 U.S.C. 1680). 6 The counties were recognized after the January 1984 CHSDA FRN was published, in accordance with Public Law 103-116, Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993, dated October 27, 1993. 7 There is no reservation for the Cayuga Nation; the service delivery area consists of those counties identified by the Cayuga Nation. 8 Skamania County, WA, has historically been a part of the Yakama Service Unit population since 1979. 9 In order to carry out the Congressional intent of the Siletz Restoration Act, Public Law 95-195, as expressed in H. Report No. 95-623, at page 4, members of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon residing in these counties are eligible for contract health services. 10 Chelan County, WA, has historically been a part of the Colville Service Unit population since 1970. 11 Pursuant to Public Law 98-481 (H. Rept. No. 98-904), Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Restoration Act, members of the Tribe residing in these counties were specified as eligible for Federal services and benefits without regard to the existence of a Federal Indian reservation. 12 The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon were recognized by Public Law 98-165 which was signed into law on November 22, 1983, and provides for eligibility in these six counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 13 The CHSDA for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana was expanded administratively by the Director, IHS, through regulation (42 CFR 136.22(6)) to include city limits of Elton, LA. 14 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians recognized by Public Law 97-391, signed into law on December 29, 1983. House Rept. No. 97-862 designates Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine Counties as a service area without regard to the existence of a reservation. The IHS later administratively expanded the CHSDA to include the counties of Coos, OR, Deschutes, OR, Klamath, OR, and Lane, OR. 15 The Cowlitz Indian Tribe was recognized in July 2002 as documented at 67 FR 46329, July 12, 2002. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. The CHSDA was administratively expanded to included Columbia County, OR, Kittitas, WA, and Wahkiakum County, WA, as published at 67884 FR December 21, 2009. 16 Treasure County, MT, has historically been a part of the Crow Service Unit population. 17 The counties listed have historically been a part of the Grand Traverse Service Unit population since 1980. 18 Haskell Indian Health Center has historically been a part of Kansas Service Unit since 1979. Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Haskell Indian Health Center (H. Rept. No. 95-392). 19 CHSDA counties for the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(5)). Dane County, WI, was added to the reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1986. 20 Public Law 97-428 provides that any member of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians in or around the Town of Houlton shall be eligible without regard to existence of a reservation. 21 The Jena Band of Choctaw Indian was Federally acknowledged as documented at 60 FR 28480, May 31, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 22 Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, formerly known as the Texas Band of Kickapoo, was recognized by Public Law 97-429, signed into law on January 8, 1983. The Act provides for eligibility for Kickapoo Tribal members residing in Maverick County without regard to the existence of a reservation. 23 The Klamath Indian Tribe Restoration Act (Pub. L. 99-398, Sec. 2(2)) states that for the purpose of Federal services and benefits “members of the tribe residing in Klamath County shall be deemed to be residing in or near a reservation”. 24 The Koi Nation of Northern California, formerly known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, was reaffirmed by the Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs on December 29, 2000. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRCDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 25 The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act recognized the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. Pursuant to Public Law 103-324, Sec. 4(b) the counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 26 The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act recognized the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. Pursuant to Public Law 103-324, Sec. 4(b) the counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 27 Mashantucket Pequot Indian Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 98-134, signed into law on October 18, 1983, provides a reservation for the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe in New London County, CT. 28 The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe was recognized in February 2007, as documented at 72 FR 8007, February 22, 2007. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 29 The Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan was recognized in October 1998, as documented at 63 FR 56936, October 23, 1998. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 30 Members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians residing in Jasper and Noxubee Counties, MS, are eligible for contract health services; these two counties were inadvertently omitted from 42 CFR 136.22. 31 Scott County, MS, has historically been a part of the Choctaw Service Unit population since 1970. 32 The Narragansett Indian Tribe was recognized by Public Law 95-395, signed into law September 30, 1978. Lands in Washington County, RI, are now Federally restricted and the Bureau of Indian Affairs considers them as the Narragansett Indian Reservation. 33 Entire State of Nevada is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(2)) 34 Carter County, MT, has historically been a part of the Northern Cheyenne Service Unit population since 1979. 35 Land of Box Elder County, Utah, was taken into trust for the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation in 1986. 36 The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan, formerly known as the Huron Band of Potawatomi, Inc., was recognized in December 1995, as documented at 60 FR 66315, December 21, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 37 Washabaugh County, SD, merged and became part of Jackson County, SD, in 1983; both were/are CHSDA counties for the Oglala Sioux Tribe. 38 Entire State of Oklahoma is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(3)). 39 Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act, Public Law 96-227, provides for the extension of services for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to these four counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 40 In the Federal Register on July 08, 2015 (80 FR 39144), the Pamunkey Indian Tribe was officially recognized as an Indian Tribe within the meaning of Federal law. The counties listed were designated administratively as the Tribe's PRCDA, as announced in the Federal Register on July 28, 2017 (82 FR 35227). 41 Legislative history (H.R. Report No. 95-1021) to Public Law 95-375, Extension of Federal Benefits to Pascua Yaqui Indians, Arizona, expresses congressional intent that lands conveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona pursuant to Act of October 8, 1964. (Pub. L. 88-350) shall be deemed a Federal Indian Reservation. 42 The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide contract health services to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. 43 The Passamaquoddy Tribe has two reservations: Indian Township and Pleasant Point. The PRCDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, ME, is Aroostook County, ME, Washington County, ME, and Hancock County, ME. The PRCDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, ME, is Washington County, ME, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, ME. 44 The Passamaquoddy Tribe's counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRCDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 45 The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide PRC to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. 46 Counties in the Service Unit designated by Congress for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (see H. Rept. 98-886, June 29, 1984; Cong. Record, October 10, 1984, Pg. H11929). 47 Public Law 103-323 restored Federal recognition to the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, in 1994 and identified counties to serve as the SDA. 48 The Ponca Restoration Act, Public Law 101-484, recognized members of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska in Boyd, Douglas, Knox, Madison or Lancaster counties of Nebraska or Charles Mix county of South Dakota as residing on or near a reservation. Public Law 104-109 made technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans and added Burt, Hall, Holt, Platte, Sarpy, Stanton, and Wayne counties of Nebraska and Pottawatomie and Woodbury counties of Iowa to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska SDA. 49 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility, rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Rapid City (S. Rept. No. 1154, FY 1967 Interior Approp. 89th Cong. 2d Sess.). 50 Historically part of Isabella Reservation Area for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and the Eastern Michigan Service Unit population since 1979. 51The Samish Indian Tribe Nation was Federally acknowledged in April 1996 as documented at 61 FR 15825, April 9, 1996. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 52 CHSDA counties for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan, were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(4)). 53 The Shinnecock Indian Nation was Federally acknowledged in June 2010 as documented at 75 FR 34760, June 18, 2010. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 54 Lemhi County, ID, has historically been a part of the Fort Hall Service Unit population since 1979. 55 The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe was Federally acknowledged in August 1997 as documented at 62 FR 45864, August 29, 1997. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 56 On December 30, 2011 the Office of Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs reaffirmed the Federal recognition of the Tejon Indian Tribe. The county listed was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. Kern County was not covered when Congress originally established the State of California as a CHSDA excluding certain counties including Kern County (25 U.S.C. 1680). 57 The Secretary acting through the Service is directed to provide contract health services to Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians that reside in Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana, in Divide, Mackenzie, and Williams counties in the state of North Dakota and the adjoining counties of Richland, Roosevelt, and Sheridan in the state of Montana (Sec. 815, Pub. L. 94-437). 58 Rapides County, LA, has historically been a part of the Tunica Biloxi Service Unit population since 1982. 59 According to Public Law 100-95, Sec. 12, members of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) residing on Martha's Vineyard are deemed to be living on or near an Indian reservation for the purposes of eligibility for Federal services. 60 The counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRCDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 61 The Wilton Rancheria, California had Federal recognition restored in July 2009 as documented at 74 FR 33468, July 13, 2009. Sacramento County, CA, was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA. Sacramento County was not covered when Congress originally established the State of California as a CHSDA excluding certain counties including Sacramento County (25 U.S.C. 1680). 62 Public Law 100-89, Restoration Act for Ysleta Del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas establishes service areas for “members of the Tribe” by sections 101(3) and 105(a) for the Pueblo and sections 201(3) and 206(a) respectively. Dated: October 2, 2017. Michael D. Weahkee, Assistant Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21759 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Re-Designation of the Delivery Area for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, Formerly Known as Smith River Rancheria AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services hereby issues this final notice to re-designate the Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area (PRCDA) for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (Tribe) (previously known as the Smith River Rancheria of Smith River, California), to provide Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) services to their Tribal members residing in Curry County, Oregon, which is in the Portland Area Indian Health Service (IHS). The Tolowa Dee-ni's Tribal Headquarters is located 3 miles south of the California-Oregon border in Northern California.

    The entire State of California, excluding the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Kern, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, and Ventura, was designated by the IHS as a PRCDA, formerly known as a Contract Health Service Delivery Area, in accordance with statute. The current PRCDA for Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribal members is the statutorily specified California PRCDA. The expanded PRCDA for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribe includes the statutorily specified California PRCDA and Curry County in the State of Oregon.

    DATES:

    This notice shall take effect on October 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terri Schmidt, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail stop: 10E85C, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone 301/443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The IHS currently provides services under regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A through C. Subpart C defines a Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area (PRCDA) as the geographic area within which Purchased/Referred Care will be made available by the Indian Health Service (IHS) to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the Area. PRCDAs were previously known as Contract Health Service Delivery Areas (CHSDAs) and more recently, the IHS referred to them as Purchased/Referred Care Service Delivery Areas (PRCSDAs) or PRCDAs, but the IHS intends to consistently refer to them as PRCDAs going forward. Residence in a PRCDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, creates no legal entitlement to PRC, only potential eligibility for services. Services needed, but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility, are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the person's relative medical priority, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.

    As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRCDA shall consist of a county that includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties that have a common boundary with the reservation, 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRCDA, the Secretary may from time to time, re-designate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRCDA. The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any re-designation is made. The criteria are as follows:

    (1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;

    (2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;

    (3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and

    (4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC, 42 CFR 136.22(b).

    Additionally, the regulations require that any re-designation of a PRCDA must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). See 42 CFR 136.22(c). In compliance with this requirement, we are publishing this final notice. Congress directed the IHS to designate the entire State of California as a PRCDA, excluding certain counties, under section 810 of the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act, Public Law 94-437, as amended (25 U.S.C. 1680). The IHS has utilized the congressionally specified PRCDA for the purposes of administering PRC benefits to members of the Tribe. Thus, members of the Tribe who reside outside of the statutorily established California PRCDA do not reside within the Tolowa Dee-ni's current PRCDA and are currently not eligible for PRC services.

    The IHS has historically established PRCDAs in accordance with Congressional intent but has preserved regulatory flexibility to re-designate areas as appropriate for inclusion in or exclusion from PRCDA under PRC regulations. One of the criteria for such re-designations is the geographic proximity of the expanded area to the existing reservation or PRCDA. Here, the IHS is expanding the Tribe's PRCDA beyond the geographic description in 25 U.S.C. 1680 to include a county adjacent to the Tribe's existing PRCDA, in a neighboring state. There are already PRCDAs that include part of the State of California and part of another state, for example, Cocopah Tribe of Arizona, (Yuma, Arizona, and Imperial, California); Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California, (La Paz, Arizona; Riverside, California; San Bernardino, California; and Yuma, Arizona); Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California and Nevada, (Nevada; Mohave, Arizona; San Bernardino, California); and the Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California and Arizona, (Yuma, Arizona; and Imperial, California).

    The Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribe has a significant number of Tribal members who are not residents of California. The Tribe asserts that 177 Tribal members reside outside of its PRCDA, in Curry County, in the State of Oregon, and are not able to access PRC funds from either the California Area facility (Smith River Howonquet Indian Health Center) or from the closest Portland Area facility.

    Under 42 CFR 136.23, those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation, but reside within a PRCDA must be either members of the Tribe or maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, in applying the aforementioned PRCDA re-designation criteria required by operative regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subpart C, the following findings are made:

    1. By expanding, the Tribe estimates the current eligible population will be increased by 177.

    2. The Tribe has determined that these 177 individuals are members of the Tribe and they are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe.

    3. The expanded area, including Curry County in the State of Oregon, maintains a common boundary with the State of California and the statutorily created California PRCDA.

    4. Generally, the Tribal members located in Curry County in the State of Oregon currently do not use the Indian health system for their PRC health care needs. The Tribe will use its existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to the expanded population. No additional financial resources will be allocated at this time by the IHS to the Tribe to provide services to Tribal members residing in Curry County in the State of Oregon.

    Public Comments: The Agency received 32 comments, 31 of which were timely. The Agency carefully reviewed the submissions. The IHS did not consider one (1) of these comments, because it was received after the closing date. Of the 31 timely comments, 28 commenters supported the proposal to expand the Tolowa Dee-ni' PRCDA into Curry County, Oregon. These included 27 commenters from the California Area and one Congressional commenter. There were three (3) commenters representing two Tribes from the Portland Area that opposed the PRCDA expansion. The IHS will address those comments below:

    Comment: The majority of commenters indicated support for the proposed PRCDA expansion and support for providing PRC to the Tribe's members living in Curry County, Oregon.

    Response: The IHS appreciates the comments in support of the expansion and agrees that the expansion would allow the Tribe to authorize PRC services for its members residing in Curry County, Oregon.

    Comment: Two commenters believed that the IHS should not be relying upon the Tribe's estimate of its members living in Curry County, Oregon, and that the IHS should either produce its own estimate or verify the Tribe's figure.

    Response: In 2014, the IHS prepared a study of the Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribe's roster of Tribal Citizens matched with patient user activity data from the National Patient Information Reporting System. The findings of the patient matching study were consistent with a previous request conducted in 2013 by the former IHS California Area Director.

    The Federal Register Notice states that the Smith River Tribe has estimated that 177 of its Tribal members reside in Curry County, in the State of Oregon, and they are not able to access PRC funds either at the California Area or the Portland Area. The IHS believes that this number is a fair approximation of the number of Smith River Tribal members residing in Curry County, given IHS's facility data, and recognizing that the Tribe has additional resources, such as a Tribal Membership Roll, to estimate the number of members residing in Curry County, Oregon, including those who have not yet sought services at IHS facilities and therefore would not be included in IHS data.

    Comment: One commenter inquired about the “threshold” for expanding a PRCDA and whether there is a minimum number or percentage in terms of Tribal members.

    Response: Each PRCDA expansion under consideration must be reviewed in accordance with the criteria set forth in 42 CFR 136.22(b), meaning this decision is a case-by-case determination based upon the facts of the particular expansion at issue. Regulations require the IHS to consider, among other factors, the “number of Indians residing in the area” of the proposed expansion, but the regulations do not require a minimum number or percentage.

    Comment: One commenter asked why the IHS is advancing the proposal for the Tribe, after declining to accommodate requests from Oregon Tribes and whether this created a double standard.

    Response: Previously, the IHS restricted certain PRCDA expansions based on the Agency's implementation of the regulatory “geographic proximity” requirement specified at 42 CFR 136.22(b)(3). While geographic proximity remains a necessary consideration in a PRCDA expansion, the IHS has reconsidered our previous position and recently adopted a more flexible approach. The IHS explained this change in an April 7, 2016, Federal Register Notice (81 FR 20388), “Notice of the Redesignation of the Service Delivery Area for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).”

    Comment: One commenter asked how the IHS verified that the Tribal members residing in Curry County, Oregon, are economically and socially affiliated with the Tribe.

    Response: Under 42 CFR 136.22(b)(2), the IHS is required to consider whether “the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribes.” The regulation does not require an independent investigation by the IHS on this issue. The IHS would typically defer to the Tribal governing body's determination, given the language in the regulation and a Tribe's better position to make this conclusion. However, the IHS would note that the Tribe's estimate for the expanded population includes only its members residing in Curry County, Oregon, and its members are eligible for PRC under 42 CFR 136.23, as long as the members reside within the PRCDA.

    Comment: Two commenters inquired about the financial aspects of the expansion, such as how this proposal would be paid for and what would be the motivation, since no additional funds are being provided to the Tribe.

    Response: Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribal members living in Curry County, Oregon, are unfunded for both IHS direct care and PRC resources. A few Tribal members have sought direct services from Tribal health programs in Oregon. While these individuals can receive direct services at the Oregon programs, no funds are allocated to the Portland Area IHS or the California Area IHS to provide services to members of the Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribe residing in Curry County. The Agency is approving the requested PRCDA expansion to allow the Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribe to authorize the purchase of PRC services, within existing funds, for members of the Tribe who reside in Curry County. Without this expansion, such purchases would not be lawful and those Tribal members would not be eligible to receive PRC services. Since there are no additional funds being provided by the IHS for the PRCDA expansion, the Tribe's current level of PRC funding will be available to serve a larger population.

    Comment: One commenter inquired about the potential future financial impact on Oregon Tribes and how this could be accurately measured, given the current data.

    Response: Per Agency policy, expanding a PRCDA does not automatically increase the funding to a Tribe. Tribes will continue to use existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to expanding population until Congress appropriates additional funding. Each IHS Area will distribute future increases based on their own methodologies. The Tribe may benefit from future increases to PRC funding because of the additional active users from the PRCDA expansion, but the IHS determined that there will be very little to no financial impact as a result of the expansion on Portland Area Tribes.

    Comment: One commenter inquired about the status of a proposed pilot project for an Area-wide PRCDA in the Portland Area IHS.

    Response: The Coquille Tribe presented a suggestion for consideration to the IHS Portland Area Funds Distribution Workgroup (FDWG). The FDWG is a Tribal consultative body that serves as a resource to the Portland Area Director on any Indian health system funds issue. The principal function of the FDWG is to develop recommendations regarding resource allocation within the Portland Area IHS. The IHS anticipates announcing a plan of action on this issue soon.

    Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Areas Tribe/reservation County/state Ak Chin Indian Community Pinal, AZ. Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas Polk, TX.1 Alaska Entire State.2 Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Hot Springs, WY, Fremont, WY, Sublette, WY. Aroostook Band of Micmacs Aroostook, ME.3 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana Daniels, MT, McCone, MT, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT, Valley, MT. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin Ashland, WI, Iron, WI. Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Chippewa, MI. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana Glacier, MT, Pondera, MT. Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah. Permanently Closed on May 17, 1984 (4) Burns Paiute Tribe Harney, OR. California Entire State, except for the counties listed in the footnote.5 Catawba Indian Nation All Counties in SC,6 Cabarrus, NC, Cleveland, NC, Gaston, NC, Mecklenburg, NC, Rutherford, NC, Union, NC. Cayuga Nation Alleghany, NY,7 Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Haakon, SD, Meade, SD, Perkins, SD, Potter, SD, Stanley, SD, Sully, SD, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana Chouteau, MT, Hill, MT, Liberty, MT. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana St. Mary Parish, LA. Cocopah Tribe of Arizona Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Coeur D'Alene Tribe Benewah, ID, Kootenai, ID, Latah, ID, Spokane, WA, Whitman, WA. Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California La Paz, AZ, Riverside, CA, San Bernardino, CA, Yuma, AZ. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Flathead, MT, Lake, MT, Missoula, MT, Sanders, MT. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Klickitat, WA, Lewis, WA, Skamania, WA,8 Yakima, WA. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon Benton, OR,9 Clackamas, OR, Lane, OR, Lincoln, OR, Linn, OR, Marion, OR, Multnomah, OR, Polk, OR, Tillamook, OR, Washington, OR, Yamhill, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Grays Harbor, WA, Lewis, WA, Thurston, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Chelan, WA,10 Douglas, WA, Ferry, WA, Grant, WA, Lincoln, WA, Okanogan, WA, Stevens, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Coos, OR,11 Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Lane, OR, Lincoln, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah Nevada, Juab, UT, Toole, UT. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Marion, OR, Multnomah, OR, Polk, OR,12 Tillamook, OR, Washington, OR, Yamhill, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Umatilla, OR, Union, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Clackamas, OR, Jefferson, OR, Linn, OR, Marion, OR, Wasco, OR. Coquille Indian Tribe Coos, OR, Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Jackson, OR, Lane, OR. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Allen Parish, LA, Elton, LA.13 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians Coos, OR,14 Deshutes, OR, Douglas, OR, Jackson, OR, Josephine, OR, Klamath, OR, Lane, OR. Cowlitz Indian Tribe Clark, WA, Cowlitz, WA, King, WA, Lewis, WA, Peirce, WA, Skamania, WA, Thurston, WA, Columbia, OR,15 Kittitas, WA, Wahkiakum, WA. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hand, SD, Hughes, SD, Hyde, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Crow Tribe of Montana Big Horn, MT, Carbon, MT, Treasure, MT,16 Yellowstone, MT, Big Horn, WY, Sheridan, WY. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Cherokee, NC, Graham, NC, Haywood, NC, Jackson, NC, Swain, NC. Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Hot Springs, WY, Fremont, WY, Sublette, WY. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Moody, SD. Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI, Marinette, WI, Oconto, WI. Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana Blaine, MT, Phillips, MT. Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon Nevada, Malheur, OR. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California and Nevada Nevada, Mohave, AZ, San Bernardino, CA. Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan Antrim, MI,17 Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI, Grand Traverse, MI, Leelanau, MI, Manistee, MI. Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan Delta, MI, Menominee, MI. Haskell Indian Health Center Douglas, KS.18 Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai
  • Reservation, Arizona
  • Coconino, AZ.
    Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Adams, WI,19 Clark, WI, Columbia, WI, Crawford, WI, Dane, WI, Eau Claire, WI, Houston, MN, Jackson, WI, Juneau, WI, La Crosse, WI, Marathon, WI, Monroe, WI, Sauk, WI, Shawano, WI, Vernon, WI, Wood, WI. Hoh Indian Tribe Jefferson, WA. Hopi Tribe of Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Aroostook, ME.20 Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Yavapai, AZ. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Doniphan, KS, Richardson, NE. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Grand Parish, LA,21 LaSalle Parish, LA, Rapides, LA. Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico Archuleta, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM. Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Kane, UT. Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation Pend Oreille, WA, Spokane, WA. Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan Baraga, MI, Houghton, MI, Ontonagon, MI. Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Maverick, TX.22 Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas Brown, KS, Jackson, KS. Klamath Tribes Klamath, OR.23 Koi Nation of Northern California (formerly known as Lower Lake Rancheria, California) Lake, CA, Sonoma, CA.24 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Boundary, ID. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Sawyer, WI. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin Iron, WI, Oneida, WI, Vilas, WI. Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan Gogebic, MI. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan Kent, MI,25 Muskegon, MI, Newaygo, MI, Oceana, MI, Ottawa, MI, Manistee, MI, Mason, MI, Wexford, MI, Lake, MI. Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan Alcona, MI,26 Alger, MI, Alpena, MI, Antrim, MI, Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI, Cheboygan, MI, Chippewa, MI, Crawford, MI, Delta, MI, Emmet, MI, Grand Traverse, MI, Iosco, MI, Kalkaska, MI, Leelanau, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Manistee, MI, Missaukee, MI, Montmorency, MI, Ogemaw, MI, Oscoda, MI, Otsego, MI, Presque Isle, MI, Schoolcraft, MI, Roscommon, MI, Wexford, MI. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hughes, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Lower Elwha Tribal Community Clallam, WA. Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Redwood, MN, Renville, MN. Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation Whatcom, WA. Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation Clallam, WA. Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe New London, CT.27 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Barnstable, MA, Bristol, MA, Norfolk, MA, Plymouth, MA, Suffolk, MA.28 Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan Allegan, MI,29 Barry, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Langlade, WI, Menominee, WI, Oconto, WI, Shawano, WI. Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico Chaves, NM, Lincoln, NM, Otero, NM. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Hendry, FL. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) Itasca, MN, Koochiching, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Fond du Lac Band Carlton, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Grand Portage Band Cook, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Leech Lake Band Beltrami, MN, Cass, MN, Hubbard, MN, Itasca, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, Mille Lacs Band Aitkin, MN, Kanebec, MN, Mille Lacs, MN, Pine, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, White Earth Band Becker, MN, Clearwater, MN, Mahnomen, MN, Norman, MN, Polk, MN. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Attala, MS, Jasper, MS,30 Jones, MS, Kemper, MS, Leake, MS, Neshoba, MS, Newton, MS, Noxubee, MS,31 Scott, MS,32 Winston, MS. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut Fairfield, CT, Hartford, CT, Litchfield, CT, Middlesex, CT, New Haven, CT, New London, CT, Tolland, CT, Windham, CT. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe King, WA, Pierce, WA. Narragansett Indian Tribe Washington, RI.33 Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah Apache, AZ, Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM, Coconino, AZ, Kane, UT, McKinley, NM, Montezuma, CO, Navajo, AZ, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT, Socorro, NM, Valencia, NM. Nevada Entire State.34 Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater, ID, Idaho, ID, Latah, ID, Lewis, ID, Nez Perce, ID. Nisqually Indian Tribe Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Nooksack Indian Tribe Whatcom, WA. Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana Big Horn, MT, Carter, MT,35 Rosebud, MT. Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation Box Elder, UT.36 Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Pottawatomi, Michigan Allegan, MI,37 Barry, MI, Branch, MI, Calhoun, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Oglala Sioux Tribe Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Custer, SD, Dawes, NE, Fall River, SD, Jackson, SD,38 Mellette, SD, Pennington, SD, Shannon, SD, Sheridan, NE, Todd, SD. Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM. Oklahoma Entire State.39 Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Burt, NE, Cuming, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE. Oneida Nation Brown, WI, Outagamie, WI. Oneida Nation of New York Chenango, NY, Cortland, NY, Herkimer, NY, Madison, NY, Oneida, NY, Onondaga, NY. Onondaga Nation Onondaga, NY. Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Iron, UT,40 Millard, UT, Sevier, UT, Washington, UT. Pamunkey Indian Tribe Caroline, Hanover, Henrico, King William, King and Queen, New Kent, Richmond (Independent City).41 Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Pima, AZ.42 Passamaquoddy Tribe Aroostook, ME,43 44 Hancock, ME,45 Washington, ME. Penobscot Nation Aroostook, ME 46, Penobscot, ME. Poarch Band of Creeks Baldwin, AL,47 Elmore, AL, Escambia, AL, Mobile, AL, Monroe, AL, Escambia, FL. Pokagon Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana Allegan, MI,48 Berrien, MI, Cass, MI, Elkhart, IN, Kosciusko, IN, La Porte, IN, Marshall, IN, St. Joseph, IN, Starke, IN, Van Buren, MI. Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Boyd, NE,49 Burt, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, NE, Hall, NE, Holt, NE, Knox, NE, Lancaster, NE, Madison, NE, Platte, NE, Pottawatomie, IA, Sarpy, NE, Stanton, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Kitsap, WA. Prairie Band of Pottawatomi Nation Jackson, KS. Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Goodhue, MN. Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico Cibola, NM. Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Torrance, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM, Sandoval, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico Taos, NM. Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico Colfax, NM, Taos, NM. Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation King, WA, Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Arizona and California Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Quinault Indian Nation Grays Harbor, WA, Jefferson, WA. Rapid City, South Dakota Pennington, SD.50 Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Bayfield, WI. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota Beltrami, MN, Clearwater, MN, Koochiching, MN, Lake of the Woods, MN, Marshall, MN, Pennington, MN, Polk, MN, Roseau, MN. Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Gregory, SD, Lyman, SD, Mellette, SD, Todd, SD, Tripp, SD. Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Richardson, NE. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Tama, IA. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Arenac, MI,51 Clare, MI, Isabella, MI, Midland, MI, Missaukee, MI. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Franklin, NY, St. Lawrence, NY. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Samish Indian Nation Clallam, WA,52 Island, WA, Jefferson, WA, King, WA, Kitsap, WA, Pierce, WA, San Juan, WA, Skagit, WA, Snohomish, WA, Whatcom, WA. San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Cochise, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Pinal, AZ. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona Coconino, AZ, San Juan, UT. Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska Bon Homme, SD, Knox, NE. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Snohomish, WA, Skagit, WA. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan Alger, MI,53 Chippewa, MI, Delta, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Marquette, MI, Schoolcraft, MI. Seminole Tribe of Florida Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Glades, FL, Hendry, FL. Seneca Nation of Indians Alleghany, NY, Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota Scott, MN. Shinnecock Indian Nation Nassau, NY,54 Suffolk, NY. Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation Pacific, WA. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Bannock, ID, Bingham, ID, Caribou, ID, Lemhi, ID,55 Power, ID. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada Nevada, Owyhee, ID. Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota Codington, SD, Day, SD, Grant, SD, Marshall, SD, Richland, ND, Roberts, SD, Sargent, ND, Traverse, MN. Skokomish Indian Tribe Mason, WA. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah Tooele, UT. Snoqualmie Indian Tribe King, WA,56 Snohomish, WA, Pierce, WA, Island, WA, Mason, WA. Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI. Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado Archuleta, CO, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, San Juan, NM. Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota Benson, ND, Eddy, ND, Nelson, ND, Ramsey, ND. Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation Ferry, WA, Lincoln, WA, Stevens, WA. Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation Mason, WA. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Barron, WI, Burnett, WI, Pine, MN, Polk, WI, Washburn, WI. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota Adams, ND, Campbell, SD, Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Emmons, ND, Grant, ND, Morton, ND, Perkins, SD, Sioux, ND, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington Snohomish, WA. Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin Menominee, WI, Shawano, WI. Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation Kitsap, WA. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Skagit, WA. Tejon Indian Tribe Kern, CA.57 Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota Dunn, ND, Mercer, ND, McKenzie, ND, McLean, ND, Mountrail, ND, Ward, ND. Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pima, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Genesee, NY, Erie, NY, Niagara, NY. Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (formerly known as Smith River Rancheria of California) California, Curry, OR.58 Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Gila, AZ. Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana Divide, ND,59 McKenzie, ND, Williams, ND, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT. Tulalip Tribes of Washington Snohomish, WA. Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe Avoyelles, LA, Rapides, LA.60 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota Rolette, ND. Tuscarora Nation Niagara, NY. Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota Chippewa, MN, Yellow Medicine, MN. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Skagit, WA. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah Carbon, UT, Daggett, UT, Duchesne, UT, Emery, UT, Grand, UT, Rio Blanco, CO, Summit, UT, Uintah, UT, Utah, UT, Wasatch, UT. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Apache, AZ, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Dukes, MA,61 Barnstable, MA, Bristol, MA, Norfolk, MA, Plymouth, MA, Suffolk, MA.62 Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California Nevada, California except for the counties listed in footnote. White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Wilton Rancheria, California Sacramento, CA.63 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Dakota, NE, Dixon, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Bon Homme, SD, Boyd, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, SD, Gregory, SD, Hutchinson, SD, Knox, NE. Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona Yavapai, AZ. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Yavapai, AZ. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas El Paso, TX.64 Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico Apache, AZ, Cibola, NM, McKinley, NM, Valencia, NM. 1 Public Law 100-89, Restoration Act for Ysleta Del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas establishes service areas for “members of the Tribe” by sections 101(3) and 105(a) for the Pueblo and sections 201(3) and 206(a) respectively. 2 Entire State of Alaska is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(1)). 3 Aroostook Band of Micmacs was recognized by Congress on November 26, 1991, through the Aroostook Band of Micmac Settlement Act. Aroostook County, ME, was defined as the SDA. 4 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah (Pub. L. 88-358). The Brigham Intermountain School Health Center was renamed to Intermountain Inter-Tribal School in 1974 and was permanently closed on May 17, 1984. 5 Entire State of California, excluding the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Kern, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, and Ventura, is designated a CHSDA (25 U.S.C. 1680). 6 The counties were recognized after the January 1984 CHSDA FRN was published, in accordance with Public Law 103-116, Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993, dated October 27, 1993. 7 There is no reservation for the Cayuga Nation; the service delivery area consists of those counties identified by the Cayuga Nation. 8 Skamania County, WA, has historically been a part of the Yakama Service Unit population since 1979. 9 In order to carry out the Congressional intent of the Siletz Restoration Act, Public Law 95-195, as expressed in H. Report No. 95-623, at page 4, members of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon residing in these counties are eligible for contract health services. 10 Chelan County, WA, has historically been a part of the Colville Service Unit population since 1970. 11 Pursuant to Public Law 98-481 (H. Rept. No. 98-904), Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Restoration Act, members of the Tribe residing in these counties were specified as eligible for Federal services and benefits without regard to the existence of a Federal Indian reservation. 12 The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon were recognized by Public Law 98-165 which was signed into law on November 22, 1983, and provides for eligibility in these six counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 13 The CHSDA for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana was expanded administratively by the Director, IHS, through regulation (42 CFR 136.22(6)) to include city limits of Elton, LA. 14 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians recognized by Public Law 97-391, signed into law on December 29, 1983. House Rept. No. 97-862 designates Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine Counties as a service area without regard to the existence of a reservation. The IHS later administratively expanded the CHSDA to include the counties of Coos, OR, Deschutes, OR, Klamath, OR, and Lane, OR. 15 The Cowlitz Indian Tribe was recognized in July 2002 as documented at 67 FR 46329, July 12, 2002. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. The CHSDA was administratively expanded to included Columbia County, OR, Kittitas, WA, and Wahkiakum County, WA, as published at 67884 FR December 21, 2009. 16 Treasure County, MT, has historically been a part of the Crow Service Unit population. 17 The counties listed have historically been a part of the Grand Traverse Service Unit population since 1980. 18 Haskell Indian Health Center has historically been a part of Kansas Service Unit since 1979. Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Haskell Indian Health Center (H. Rept. No. 95-392). 19 CHSDA counties for the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(5)). Dane County, WI, was added to the reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1986. 20 Public Law 97-428 provides that any member of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians in or around the Town of Houlton shall be eligible without regard to existence of a reservation. 21 The Jena Band of Choctaw Indian was Federally acknowledged as documented at 60 FR 28480, May 31, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 22 Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, formerly known as the Texas Band of Kickapoo, was recognized by Public Law 97-429, signed into law on January 8, 1983. The Act provides for eligibility for Kickapoo Tribal members residing in Maverick County without regard to the existence of a reservation. 23 The Klamath Indian Tribe Restoration Act (Pub. L. 99-398, Sec. 2(2)) states that for the purpose of Federal services and benefits “members of the tribe residing in Klamath County shall be deemed to be residing in or near a reservation”. 24 The Koi Nation of Northern California, formerly known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, was reaffirmed by the Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs on December 29, 2000. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRCDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 25 The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act recognized the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. Pursuant to Public Law 103-324, Sec. 4(b) the counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 26 The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act recognized the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. Pursuant to Public Law 103-324, Sec. 4(b) the counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 27 Mashantucket Pequot Indian Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 98-134, signed into law on October 18, 1983, provides a reservation for the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe in New London County, CT. 28 The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe was recognized in February 2007, as documented at 72 FR 8007, February 22, 2007. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 29 The Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan was recognized in October 1998, as documented at 63 FR 56936, October 23, 1998. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 30 Members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians residing in Jasper and Noxubee Counties, MS, are eligible for contract health services; these two counties were inadvertently omitted from 42 CFR 136.22. 31Members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians residing in Jasper and Noxubee Counties, MS, are eligible for contract health services; these two counties were inadvertently omitted from 42 CFR 136.22. 32 Scott County, MS, has historically been a part of the Choctaw Service Unit population since 1970. 33 The Narragansett Indian Tribe was recognized by Public Law 95-395, signed into law September 30, 1978. Lands in Washington County, RI, are now Federally restricted and the Bureau of Indian Affairs considers them as the Narragansett Indian Reservation. 34 Entire State of Nevada is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(2)). 35 Carter County, MT, has historically been a part of the Northern Cheyenne Service Unit population since 1979. 36 Land of Box Elder County, Utah, was taken into trust for the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation in 1986. 37 The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan, formerly known as the Huron Band of Potawatomi, Inc., was recognized in December 1995, as documented at 60 FR 66315, December 21, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 38 Washabaugh County, SD, merged and became part of Jackson County, SD, in 1983; both were/are CHSDA counties for the Oglala Sioux Tribe. 39 Entire State of Oklahoma is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(3)). 40 Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act, Public Law 96-227, provides for the extension of services for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to these four counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 41 In the Federal Register on July 08, 2015 (80 FR 39144), the Pamunkey Indian Tribe was officially recognized as an Indian Tribe within the meaning of Federal law. The counties listed were designated administratively as the Tribe's PRCDA, as announced in the Federal Register on July 28, 2017 (82 FR 35227). 42 Legislative history (H.R. Report No. 95-1021) to Public Law 95-375, Extension of Federal Benefits to Pascua Yaqui Indians, Arizona, expresses congressional intent that lands conveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona pursuant to Act of October 8, 1964. (Pub. L. 88-350) shall be deemed a Federal Indian Reservation. 43 The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide contract health services to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. 44 The Passamaquoddy Tribe has two reservations: Indian Township and Pleasant Point. The PRCDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, ME, is Aroostook County, ME, Washington County, ME, and Hancock County, ME. The PRCDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, ME, is Washington County, ME, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, ME. 45 The Passamaquoddy Tribe's counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRCDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 46 The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide PRC to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. 47 Counties in the Service Unit designated by Congress for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (see H. Rept. 98-886, June 29, 1984; Cong. Record, October 10, 1984, Pg. H11929). 48 Public Law 103-323 restored Federal recognition to the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, in 1994 and identified counties to serve as the SDA. 49 The Ponca Restoration Act, Public Law 101-484, recognized members of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska in Boyd, Douglas, Knox, Madison or Lancaster counties of Nebraska or Charles Mix county of South Dakota as residing on or near a reservation. Public Law 104-109 made technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans and added Burt, Hall, Holt, Platte, Sarpy, Stanton, and Wayne counties of Nebraska and Pottawatomie and Woodbury counties of Iowa to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska SDA. 50 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility, rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Rapid City (S. Rept. No. 1154, FY 1967 Interior Approp. 89th Cong. 2d Sess.). 51 Historically part of Isabella Reservation Area for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and the Eastern Michigan Service Unit population since 1979. 52The Samish Indian Tribe Nation was Federally acknowledged in April 1996 as documented at 61 FR 15825, April 9, 1996. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 53 CHSDA counties for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan, were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(4)). 54 The Shinnecock Indian Nation was Federally acknowledged in June 2010 as documented at 75 FR 34760, June 18, 2010. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 55 Lemhi County, ID, has historically been a part of the Fort Hall Service Unit population since 1979. 56 The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe was Federally acknowledged in August 1997 as documented at 62 FR 45864, August 29, 1997. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 57 On December 30, 2011 the Office of Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs reaffirmed the Federal recognition of the Tejon Indian Tribe. The county listed was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 58 The counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRC SDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 59 The Secretary acting through the Service is directed to provide contract health services to Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians that reside in Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana, in Divide, Mackenzie, and Williams counties in the state of North Dakota and the adjoining counties of Richland, Roosevelt, and Sheridan in the state of Montana (Sec. 815, Pub. L. 94-437). 60 Rapides County, LA, has historically been a part of the Tunica Biloxi Service Unit population since 1982. 61 According to Public Law 100-95, Sec. 12, members of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) residing on Martha's Vineyard are deemed to be living on or near an Indian reservation for the purposes of eligibility for Federal services. 62 The counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRCDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 63 The Wilton Rancheria, California had Federal recognition restored in July 2009 as documented at 74 FR 33468, July 13, 2009. Sacramento County, CA, was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA. Sacramento County was not covered when Congress originally established the State of California as a CHSDA excluding certain counties including Sacramento County (25 U.S.C. 1680). 64 Public Law 100-89, Restoration Act for Ysleta Del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas establishes service areas for “members of the Tribe” by sections 101(3) and 105(a) for the Pueblo and sections 201(3) and 206(a) respectively.
    Dated: October 2, 2017. Michael D. Weahkee, RADM, Assistant Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21758 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The portion of the meeting devoted to the identification and evaluation of specific candidates for consideration for leadership positions in the Clinical Center will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature disclosure of potential candidates and their qualifications, as well as the discussions by the committee, could significantly frustrate NIH's ability to recruit these individuals and the consideration of personnel qualifications, performance, and the competence of individuals as candidates would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board.

    Date: October 20, 2017.

    Open: 9:00 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.

    Agenda: Patient Safety Racking and Reporting System; Quality Improvement Assessment Results; IRB Consolidation.

    Place: National Institutes of Health Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 3:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Identification of Candidates for Leadership Role.

    Place: National Institutes of Health Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Gretchen Wood, Staff Assistant, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, One Center Drive, Building 1, Room 126, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-4272, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: October 3, 2017. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21690 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Second Stage Review.

    Date: November 6, 2017.

    Time: 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, Bethesda/Chevy Chase, Room 7301, Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Jeannette L. Johnson, Ph.D., National Institutes on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7705, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 3, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21685 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIA.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute On Aging, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIA.

    Date: November 14-15, 2017.

    Closed: November 14, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 8:20 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Open: November 14, 2017, 8:20 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.

    Agenda: Committee discussion, individual presentations, laboratory overview.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Closed: November 14, 2017, 11:50 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Open: November 14, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.

    Agenda: Committee discussion, individual presentations, laboratory overview.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Closed: November 14, 2017, 2:05 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Open: November 14, 2017, 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Committee discussion, individual presentations, laboratory overview.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Closed: November 14, 2017, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Closed: November 15, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 8:20 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Open: November 15, 2017, 8:20 a.m. to 11:40 a.m.

    Agenda: Committee discussion, individual presentations, laboratory overview.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Closed: November 15, 2017, 11:40 a.m. to 12:40 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Contact Person: Luigi Ferrucci, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Director, National Institute on Aging, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Suite 100, Room 4C225, Baltimore, MD 21224, 410-558-8110, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 3, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21686 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Specification for Postal Security Devices and Indicia (Postmarks); Correction AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a document in the Federal Register on October 2, 2017, contemplating the modification of grant of an Exclusive Patent License to EncepHeal Therapeutics, Inc., located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to practice the inventions embodied in the patent applications listed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. The document contained an incorrect date of signature.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Rodriguez, 240-276-6661.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 2, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-21048, on page 45866, in the second column, correct the “Dated: September 22, 2107” caption to read: “Dated: September 22, 2017”.

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Richard U. Rodriguez, Associate Director, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21689 Filed 10-6-17; 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: Health Informatics and Biostatistical Methods.

    Date: October 20, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 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: Rafael Semansky, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2040M, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-5749, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group, Biostatistical Methods and Research Design Study Section.

    Date: October 26-27, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    Contact Person: Peter J. Kozel, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3139, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1116, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Integrative Neuroscience.

    Date: October 27, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ying-Yee Kong, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5185, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Acute Brain Injury and Recovery.

    Date: October 30, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 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: Alexander Yakovlev, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5206, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892-7846, 301-435-1254, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Pulmonary Diseases.

    Date: October 31-November 1, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 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 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: George M. Barnas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4220, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0696, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Cardiac Contractility, Hypertrophy, and Failure Study Section.

    Date: November 1-2, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 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: Abdelouahab Aitouche, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4222, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2365, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

    Date: November 1, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 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: Jana Drgonova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5213, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-2549, [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: October 3, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21682 Filed 10-6-17; 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; Metabolic Reprogramming to Improve Immunotherapy.

    Date: October 30, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Malaya Chatterjee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6192, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806-2515, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Medical Imaging Investigations.

    Date: October 31, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Mehrdad Mohseni, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0484, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Alcohol and Cocaine.

    Date: November 1-2, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Michael Selmanoff, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5164, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1119, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Surgical Disparities Research.

    Date: November 1, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Claire E. Gutkin, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3106, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3139, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Research Project Cooperative Agreements.

    Date: November 1, 2017.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Nitsa Rosenzweig, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4152, MSC 7760, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 404-7419, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Pilot Clinical Trials for The Spectrum of Alzheimer's Disease.

    Date: November 1, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 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: Wind Cowles, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3172, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-437-7872, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: Molecular and Cellular Substrates of Complex Brain Disorders.

    Date: November 2-3, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Zoe San Francisco, 425 North Point St., San Francisco, CA 94133.

    Contact Person: Brian H. Scott, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7490, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Biomedical Sensing, Measurement and Instrument.

    Date: November 2-3, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Inna Gorshkova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1784, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship: Immunology.

    Date: November 2-3, 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: Liying Guo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4016F, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0908, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Hematology and Vascular Pathobiology.

    Date: November 2-3, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ai-Ping Zou, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9497, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Integrative Neuroscience.

    Date: November 2, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Jasenka Borzan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892-7814, 301-435-1787, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics in Drug Discovery and Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance.

    Date: November 2, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231.

    Contact Person: Guangyong Ji, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3211, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1146, [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: October 3, 2017. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21683 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Chronic Statin Use and Influenza Vaccine Responses in Older Adult.

    Date: October 31, 2017.

    Time: 2:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DRPH, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 3, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21687 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; Small Research Grant for Oral Health Data Analysis and Statistical Methodology Development.

    Date: November 2, 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: Guo He Zhang, MPH, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Natl Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard Suite, 672, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; NIDCR Clinical Trials and Studies SEP.

    Date: November 13, 2017.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Latarsha J. Carithers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCR, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 672, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4859, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 3, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21688 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Stem Cell—Derived Blood Products.

    Date: October 24, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7198, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kristin Goltry, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7198, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0297, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 3, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21684 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0025] Agency Information Collection Activities: Report of Diversion AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than November 9, 2017) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP Web site at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (82 FR 37105) on August 8, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (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) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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 comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Report of Diversion.

    OMB Number: 1651-0025.

    Form Number: CBP Form 26.

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected on Form 26.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Abstract: CBP Form 26, Report of Diversion, is used to track vessels traveling coastwise from U.S. ports to other U.S. ports when a change occurs in scheduled itineraries. This form is initiated by the vessel owner or agent to notify and request approval by CBP for a vessel to divert while traveling coastwise from a U.S. port to another U.S. port, or a vessel traveling to a foreign port having to divert to a U.S. port when a change occurs in the vessel itinerary. CBP Form 26 collects information such as the name and nationality of the vessel, the expected port and date of arrival, and information about any related penalty cases, if applicable. This information collection is authorized by 46 U.S.C. 60105 and is provided for in 19 CFR 4.91. CBP Form 26 is accessible at http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%2026_0.pdf.

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,400.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 2,800.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 233.

    Dated: October 4, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-21737 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0001] Agency Information Collection Activities: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; revision of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than November 9, 2017 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP Web site at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (82 FR 35982) on August 2, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (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) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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 comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing.

    OMB Number: 1651-0001.

    Form Numbers: CBP Forms 1302, 1302A, 7509, 7533.

    Abstract: This OMB approval includes the following existing information collections: CBP Form 1302 (or electronic equivalent); CBP Form 1302A (or electronic equivalent); CBP Form 7509 (or electronic equivalent); CBP Form 7533 (or electronic equivalent); Manifest Confidentiality; Vessel Stow Plan (Import); Container Status Messages; and Importer Security Filing, Electronic Ocean Export Manifest; Electronic Air Export Manifest; Electronic Rail Export Manifest; and Vessel Stow Plan (Export). CBP is proposing to add a new information collection for the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Pilot Program.

    CBP Form 1302: The master or commander of a vessel arriving in the United States from abroad with cargo on board must file CBP Form 1302, Inward Cargo Declaration, or submit the information on this form using a CBP-approved electronic equivalent. CBP Form 1302 is part of the manifest requirements for vessels entering the United States and was agreed upon by treaty at the United Nations Inter-government Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO). This form and/or electronic equivalent, is provided for by 19 CFR 4.5, 4.7, 4.7a, 4.8, 4.33, 4.34, 4.38, 4.84, 4.85, 4.86, 4.91, 4.93 and 4.99 and is accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%201302_0.pdf.

    CBP Form 1302A: The master or commander of a vessel departing from the United States must file CBP Form 1302A, Cargo Declaration Outward With Commercial Forms, or CBP-approved electronic equivalent, with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest. This form and/or electronic equivalent, is provided for by 19 CFR 4.62, 4.63, 4.75, 4.82, and 4.87-4.89 and is accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%201302_0.pdf.

    Electronic Ocean Export Manifest: CBP began a pilot in 2015 to electronically collect ocean export manifest information. This information is transmitted to CBP in advance via the Automated Export System (AES) within the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).

    CBP Form 7509: The aircraft commander or agent must file Form 7509, Air Cargo Manifest, with CBP at the departure airport, or respondents may submit the information on this form using a CBP-approved electronic equivalent. CBP Form 7509 contains information about the cargo onboard the aircraft. This form, and/or electronic equivalent, is provided for by 19 CFR 122.35, 122.48, 122.48a, 122.52, 122.54, 122.73, 122.113, and 122.118, and is accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%207509_0.pdf.

    Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS): CBP began a pilot in 2012 announced via a notice published in Federal Register on October 24, 2012 (77 FR 65006). The ACAS pilot is a voluntary test in which participants agree to submit a subset of the required 19 CFR 122.48a data elements at the earliest point practicable prior to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft destined to or transiting through the United States. The ACAS pilot data is transmitted to CBP via a CBP-approved electronic data interchange system. Currently, the ACAS pilot data consists of:

    (1) Air waybill number (2) Total quantity based on the smallest external packing unit (3) Total weight (4) Cargo description (5) Shipper name and address (6) Consignee name and address

    Electronic Air Export Manifest: CBP began a pilot in 2015 to electronically collect air export manifest information. This information is transmitted to CBP in