Federal Register Vol. 82, No.227,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 227 (November 28, 2017)

Page Range56151-56527
FR Document

82_FR_227
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 56277 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 56151 - Walnuts Grown in California; Decreased Assessment RatePDF
82 FR 56152 - Pecans Grown in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas; Establishment of Reporting Requirements and New Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 56223 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56224 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56173 - Polyethyleneimine; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
82 FR 56235 - Peer Review To Inform the Safe Drinking Water Act Decision Making on Perchlorate in Drinking WaterPDF
82 FR 56275 - Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 56276 - Humanities Panel Advisory Committee; Charter RenewalPDF
82 FR 56294 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56319 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56293 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56234 - Proposed Cercla Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Rowayton Trading Company, Inc., Bridgeport Fire Site, Bridgeport, ConnecticutPDF
82 FR 56222 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0082, Whistleblower ProvisionPDF
82 FR 56252 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SAVAYSAPDF
82 FR 56242 - Notice of Agreement FiledPDF
82 FR 56221 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 56180 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; Quota TransferPDF
82 FR 56278 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments RequestPDF
82 FR 56217 - Export Trade Certificate of ReviewPDF
82 FR 56300 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Tier Size Pilot of Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size Requirements for OTC Equity Securities)PDF
82 FR 56315 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4702PDF
82 FR 56317 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 497(c) Regarding the Requirements for the Listing of Securities That Are Issued by the Exchange or Any of Its AffiliatesPDF
82 FR 56290 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 5.1-E(c) Regarding the Requirements for the Listing of Securities That Are Issued by the Exchange or Any of Its AffiliatesPDF
82 FR 56302 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 497-Equities (c) Regarding the Requirements for the Listing of Securities That Are Issued by the Exchange or Any of Its AffiliatesPDF
82 FR 56320 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1009 To Modify the Criteria for Listing an Option on an Underlying Covered SecurityPDF
82 FR 56293 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Listing Requirements Related to Special Purpose Acquisition Companies To Reduce Round Lot Holders on Nasdaq Capital Market for Initial Listing From 300 to 150 and Eliminate Public Holders for Continued Listing From 300 to Zero, Require $5 Million in Net Tangible Assets for Initial and Continued Listing on Nasdaq Capital Market, and Impose a Deadline To Demonstrate Compliance With Initial Listing Requirements on All Nasdaq Markets Within 30 Days Following Each Business CombinationPDF
82 FR 56297 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees for Regular Orders in Select SymbolsPDF
82 FR 56180 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota TransferPDF
82 FR 56250 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; Senza Spinal Cord Stimulation SystemPDF
82 FR 56246 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; YONDELISPDF
82 FR 56253 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZERBAXAPDF
82 FR 56321 - Notice of Preparation and Request for Input for the United States-Chile Environmental Cooperation Agreement Work ProgramPDF
82 FR 56327 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 56262 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Phragmites Adaptive Management FrameworkPDF
82 FR 56237 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 56238 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 56244 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RAPIVABPDF
82 FR 56239 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 56193 - Promoting Investment in the 3500-3700 MHz BandPDF
82 FR 56259 - Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Customer Comment CardPDF
82 FR 56260 - Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Exercise Information SystemPDF
82 FR 56216 - Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory BoardPDF
82 FR 56263 - Notice of Public Meeting, Farmington District Resource Advisory Council, New MexicoPDF
82 FR 56279 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 56264 - Notice of Public Meeting, Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council, New MexicoPDF
82 FR 56226 - Charter Renewals: National Coal CouncilPDF
82 FR 56181 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards Program DesignPDF
82 FR 56264 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Pure Water San Diego Program, North City Project; San Diego County, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 56201 - Revision of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest RegulationsPDF
82 FR 56218 - Ripe Olives From Spain: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
82 FR 56214 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Belarus, the Russian Federation, and the United Arab Emirates: Affirmative Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Finding of Critical CircumstancesPDF
82 FR 56220 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Korea: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
82 FR 56211 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 230-Piedmont Triad Area, North Carolina; Authorization of Production Activity Klaussner Home Furnishings (Upholstered Furniture) Asheboro and Candor, North CarolinaPDF
82 FR 56212 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 241-Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Marine Industries Association of South Florida (Yacht Repair/Refitting), Fort Lauderdale, FloridaPDF
82 FR 56213 - Proposed Reestablishment and Expansion of Site-Foreign-Trade Zone 276 Kern County, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 56212 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 204-Tri-Cities Area, TN/VA; Notification of Proposed Production Activity Eastman Chemical Company (Acetic Anhydride and Acetic Acid) Kingsport, TennesseePDF
82 FR 56214 - Approval of Subzone Status; Ekornes Inc.; Somerset, New JerseyPDF
82 FR 56211 - Foreign-Trade Zone 144-Brunswick, Georgia; Application for Subzone Orgill, Inc. Tifton, GeorgiaPDF
82 FR 56210 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 39-Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Dallas Airmotive, Inc (Aircraft Engine Disassembly), DFW Airport, TexasPDF
82 FR 56261 - Notice of Availability; Draft Environmental Assessment for a Draft Amendment To Add the Northern Mexican Gartersnake to the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation ProgramPDF
82 FR 56225 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; SEA and LEA Self-Assessment and Monitoring ProtocolPDF
82 FR 56280 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Minor Rule Violation PlanPDF
82 FR 56291 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Minor Rule Violation PlanPDF
82 FR 56309 - Order Extending Conditional Temporary Exemption for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations From Requirements of Rule 17g-5(A)(3) Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934PDF
82 FR 56178 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Re-Opening of the Recreational Sector for Red SnapperPDF
82 FR 56208 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56301 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56308 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56322 - Notice of Meeting of Advisory Committee on International LawPDF
82 FR 56267 - Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Germany-Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 56240 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (OMB No. 3064-0177)PDF
82 FR 56322 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
82 FR 56269 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Stipulation and Order Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
82 FR 56208 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory Committee To Discuss Hearing Preparations for Barriers to Voting ReportPDF
82 FR 56226 - Notice of Orders Issued Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act During October 2017PDF
82 FR 56240 - Next Meeting of the North American Numbering CouncilPDF
82 FR 56248 - Pediatric Information for X-Ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 56255 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Amended; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 56331 - Advisory Committee Charter RenewalsPDF
82 FR 56320 - Committee Member Nominations Sought Notice; Advisory Committee on Veterans Business AffairsPDF
82 FR 56273 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 56169 - Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 56228 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 56268 - Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Denial of Petition Requesting Reconsideration of Commission Determination Finding Petition of Certain Issues To Be Waived; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
82 FR 56265 - Certain Batteries and Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 56266 - Certain Mounting Apparatuses for Holding Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 56271 - Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System-Revision for 2018PDF
82 FR 56242 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56258 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 56256 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 56177 - International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Restrictions on Fishing for Sharks in the Eastern Pacific OceanPDF
82 FR 56255 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 56204 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Biennial SpecificationsPDF
82 FR 56170 - Safety Zone; Delaware River, Pipeline Removal, Marcus Hook, PAPDF
82 FR 56243 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56325 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Departmental Offices Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 56237 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 56236 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 56304 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.35-E Relating to Auction Collars and To Add Temporary RulesPDF
82 FR 56282 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.35E Relating to Auction Collars and To Add Temporary RulesPDF
82 FR 56311 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, To List and Trade Shares of the U.S. Equity Cumulative Dividends Fund-Series 2027 and the U.S. Equity Ex-Dividend Fund-Series 2027 Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02PDF
82 FR 56294 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Order Feed (“MOR”)PDF
82 FR 56287 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; BOX Options Exchange LLC; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Investors Exchange LLC; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; MIAX PEARL, LLC; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Thereto, To Eliminate Requirements That Will Be Duplicative of CATPDF
82 FR 56288 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Directed Order FunctionalityPDF
82 FR 56324 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionPDF
82 FR 56281 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56319 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56292 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 56224 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Charter School Facilities National QuestionnairePDF
82 FR 56275 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: 2019-2021 IMLS Collections Assessment for Preservation ProgramPDF
82 FR 56331 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Lender's Staff Appraisal Reviewer (SAR) ApplicationPDF
82 FR 56332 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Artery and Vein Conditions (Vascular Diseases Including Varicose Veins) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Hypertension Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Non-Ischemic Heart Disease (Including Arrhythmias and Surgery) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (Diabetic Sensory-Motor Peripheral Neuropathy) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Diabetes Mellitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Scars/Disfigurement Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Skin Diseases Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Amputations Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Muscles Injuries Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Eye Conditions Disability Benefits QuestionnairePDF
82 FR 56333 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: VBA Loan Guaranty Service Lender Satisfaction SurveyPDF
82 FR 56229 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 56231 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 56233 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 56234 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 56186 - Coordination of Protection Systems for Performance During Faults and Specific Training for Personnel Reliability StandardsPDF
82 FR 56280 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 56245 - Weighing the Evidence: Variant Classification and Interpretation in Precision Oncology; Public WorkshopPDF
82 FR 56232 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Wildwood Lessee, LLCPDF
82 FR 56233 - Ormesa LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 56232 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 56230 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 56229 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Phibro Americas LLCPDF
82 FR 56276 - Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC; Notice of HearingPDF
82 FR 56173 - Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality Implementation Plan, Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Program; Revision to Nebraska Administrative Code; Withdrawal of Direct Final RulePDF
82 FR 56325 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple FinCEN Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 56270 - Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of RecognitionPDF
82 FR 56172 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Withdrawal of Direct Final RulePDF
82 FR 56172 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Withdrawal of Direct Final RulePDF
82 FR 56165 - Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation HelicoptersPDF
82 FR 56192 - Report on Potential Actions To Reduce Regulatory Burdens on Domestic Energy ProductionPDF
82 FR 56322 - Chesapeake and Indiana Railroad Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Starke County, IndianaPDF
82 FR 56328 - Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 2018 Data CallPDF
82 FR 56156 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 56167 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 56163 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH HelicoptersPDF
82 FR 56336 - Medicare Program; Contract Year 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, and the PACE ProgramPDF
82 FR 56158 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF

Issue

82 227 Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Pecans Grown in States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas: Establishment of Reporting Requirements and New Information Collection, 56152-56155 2017-25735 Walnuts Grown in California: Decreased Assessment Rate, 56151-56152 2017-25736 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56223-56224 2017-25716 2017-25717 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Contract Year 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, and the PACE Program, 56336-56527 2017-25068 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56242-56244 2017-25612 2017-25621 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Louisiana Advisory Committee, 56208 2017-25635 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Delaware River, Pipeline Removal, Marcus Hook, PA, 56170-56172 2017-25613 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56208-56210 2017-25644
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants; Correction, 56169-56170 2017-25627 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56221-56222 2017-25698 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Whistleblower Provision, 56222-56223 2017-25704 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Charter School Facilities National Questionnaire, 56224-56225 2017-25597 SEA and LEA Self-Assessment and Monitoring Protocol, 56225-56226 2017-25649 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards Program Design, 56181-56186 2017-25663 NOTICES Charter Renewals: National Coal Council, 56226 2017-25664 Import/Export Authorizations: United Energy Trading Canada, ULC; Cannat Energy, Inc.; DTE Energy Trading, Inc., et al., 56226-56228 2017-25634
Engineers Engineers Corps PROPOSED RULES Report on Potential Actions To Reduce Regulatory Burdens on Domestic Energy Production, 56192-56193 2017-25554 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri; Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule, 56172-56173 2017-25569 Missouri; Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule, 56172 2017-25568 Nebraska; Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plan, Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Program; Revision to Nebraska Administrative Code; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule, 56173 2017-25576 Tolerance Exemptions: Polyethyleneimine, 56173-56176 2017-25715 NOTICES CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlements: Rowayton Trading Co., Inc., Bridgeport Fire Site, Bridgeport, CT, 56234-56235 2017-25707 Peer Reviews: Safe Drinking Water Act Decision Making on Perchlorate in Drinking Water, 56235-56236 2017-25714 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 56158-56163, 56167-56169 2017-23349 2017-25253 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters, 56163-56165 2017-25189 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters, 56165-56167 2017-25558 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 56156-56158 2017-25379 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Promoting Investment in 3500-3700 MHz Band, 56193-56201 2017-25672 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56236-56240 2017-25609 2017-25610 2017-25675 2017-25677 2017-25678 Meetings: North American Numbering Council, 56240 2017-25633 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56240-56241 2017-25638 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 56258-56259 2017-25619 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 56255-56258 2017-25615 2017-25618 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 56228-56234 2017-25579 2017-25580 2017-25582 2017-25587 2017-25588 2017-25589 2017-25590 2017-25626 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Ormesa, LLC, 56233 2017-25581 Phibro Americas, LLC, 56229 2017-25578 Wildwood Lessee, LLC, 56232 2017-25583 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 56242 2017-25699 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest, 56201-56204 2017-25661 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Draft Amendment To Add Northern Mexican Gartersnake to Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, 56261-56262 2017-25650 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RAPIVAB, 56244-56245 2017-25676 Guidance: Pediatric Information for X-ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications, 56248-56250 2017-25632 Meetings: Weighing the Evidence: Variant Classification and Interpretation in Precision Oncology; Public Workshop, 56245-56246 2017-25584 Regulatory Review Periods for Purposes of Patent Extensions: SAVAYSA, 56252-56253 2017-25703 SENZA SPINAL CORD STIMULATION SYSTEM, 56250-56252 2017-25684 YONDELIS, 56246-56248 2017-25683 ZERBAXA, 56253-56255 2017-25682 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 56322-56325 2017-25602 2017-25637 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Dallas Airmotive, Inc.; Foreign-Trade Zone 39; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, 56210-56211 2017-25651 Eastman Chemical Co.; Foreign-Trade Zone 204: Tri-Cities Area, TN/VA, 56212 2017-25654 Klaussner Home Furnishings; Foreign-Trade Zone 230; Piedmont Triad Area, NC, 56211-56212 2017-25657 Marine Industries Association of South Florida; Foreign-Trade Zone 241; Fort Lauderdale, FL, 56212-56213 2017-25656 Proposed Reestablishments and Expansions of Sites: Foreign-Trade Zone 276 Kern County, CA, 56213-56214 2017-25655 Subzone Applications: Orgill, Inc.; Foreign-Trade Zone 144; Brunswick, GA, 56211 2017-25652 Subzone Approvals: Ekornes Inc.; Somerset, NJ, 56214 2017-25653 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Phragmites Adaptive Management Framework, 56262-56263 2017-25679 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

Transportation Security Administration

Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2019-2021 IMLS Collections Assessment for Preservation Program, 56275 2017-25594 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Reclamation Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Ripe Olives From Spain, 56218-56219 2017-25660 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Republic of Korea, 56220-56221 2017-25658 Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Belarus, Russian Federation, and United Arab Emirates, 56214-56216 2017-25659 Export Trade Certificates of Review: California Almond Export Association, LLC, 56217 2017-25695 Meetings: United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, 56216-56217 2017-25668 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Batteries and Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 56265-56266 2017-25624 Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof, 56268-56269 2017-25625 Certain Mounting Apparatuses for Holding Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, 56266-56267 2017-25623 Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Germany: Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Review, 56267 2017-25639 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Stipulations and Orders: Hawker Beechcraft, Inc., et al., 56269-56270 2017-25636 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories: Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.; Grant of Expansion of Recognition, 56270-56271 2017-25570 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Farmington District Resource Advisory Council, New Mexico, 56263 2017-25667 Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council, New Mexico, 56264 2017-25665 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Standard Occupational Classification System: Revision for 2018, 56271-56273 2017-25622 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules, 56273-56275 2017-25628 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities NOTICES Charter Renewals: Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee, 56275-56276 2017-25712 Humanities Panel Advisory Committee, 56276 2017-25711 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

See

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Amendment, 56255 2017-25631 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery of South Atlantic; Re-opening of Recreational Sector for Red Snapper, 56178-56179 2017-25645 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; Quota Transfer, 56180 2017-25697 Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer, 56180 2017-25685 International Fisheries: Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Restrictions on Fishing for Sharks in Eastern Pacific Ocean, 56177-56178 2017-25617 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Biennial Specifications, 56204-56207 2017-25614 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 56277-56278 2017-25752 Permit Applications: Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC; Hearing, 56276-56277 2017-25577 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56278 2017-25696 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 56279-56280 2017-25595 2017-25666 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 56280 2017-25585 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Pure Water San Diego Program, North City Project; San Diego County, CA, 56264-56265 2017-25662 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56281, 56292-56294, 56301-56302, 56308-56309, 56319-56320 2017-25599 2017-25600 2017-25601 2017-25642 2017-25643 2017-25708 2017-25709 2017-25710 Orders: Extending Conditional Temporary Exemption for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations From Requirements Under Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 56309-56311 2017-25646 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; BOX Options Exchange, LLC; et al., 56287-56288 2017-25604 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 56300-56301 2017-25694 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 56291-56292, 56294-56297 2017-25605 2017-25647 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 56280-56281 2017-25648 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 56297-56300 2017-25686 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 56288-56289 2017-25603 Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, 56320 2017-25689 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 56293 2017-25687 Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 56315-56317 2017-25693 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 56317-56319 2017-25692 NYSE American, LLC, 56282-56286, 56302-56303 2017-25607 2017-25690 NYSE Arca, Inc., 56290-56291, 56304-56308, 56311-56315 2017-25606 2017-25608 2017-25691 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, 56320-56321 2017-25629 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on International Law, 56322 2017-25641 United States-Chile Environmental Cooperation Agreement Work Program; Preparation and Request for Input, 56321 2017-25681 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: Chesapeake and Indiana Railroad Co. in Starke County, IN, 56322 2017-25531 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Exercise Information System, 56260-56261 2017-25669 TSA Customer Comment Card, 56259-56260 2017-25670 Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56325-56328 2017-25574 2017-25611 2017-25680 Requests for Comments: Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 2018 Data Call, 56328-56331 2017-25402
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Artery and Vein Conditions (Vascular Diseases Including Varicose Veins) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Hypertension Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Non-Ischemic Heart Disease (Including Arrhythmias and Surgery) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, etc., 56332-56333 2017-25592 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Lender's Staff Appraisal Reviewer Application, 56331 2017-25593 VBA Loan Guaranty Service Lender Satisfaction Survey, 56333 2017-25591 Charter Renewals: Advisory Committees, 56331-56332 2017-25630 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 56336-56527 2017-25068 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.

82 227 Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 984 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-17-0035; SC17-984-1 FIR] Walnuts Grown in California; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that implemented a recommendation from the California Walnut Board (Board) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0465 to $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board is comprised of growers and handlers of walnuts and locally administers the Marketing Order that regulates the handling of walnuts grown in California. The Board also has a public member who has no financial interest in walnut production or handling.

DATES:

Effective November 29, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Jeffrey Smutny, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses; or by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “Order.” The Order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

Under the Order, California walnut handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the Order. Assessment rates issued under the Order are intended to be applicable to all assessable California walnuts for the entire marketing year and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Board's marketing year began on September 1 and ends on August 31.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2017, and effective July 24, 2017, (82 FR 33775), § 984.347 was amended by decreasing the assessment rate established for California walnuts for the 2017-18 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0465 to $0.0400 per hundredweight pound of assessable walnuts. The decrease was recommended by the Board because the 2017-18 crop is expected to be 615,000 tons, which is 62,000 tons larger than the 2016-17 crop. At that crop level, handler assessments, combined with funds from the financial reserve, should provide adequate funds to administer the program.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 4,700 growers of California walnuts in the production area and approximately 90 handlers subject to regulation under the Marketing Order. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small agricultural growers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS) 2012 Census of Agriculture, approximately 86 percent of California's walnut farms were smaller than 100 acres. Further, NASS reports that the average yield for 2015 was 2.01 tons per acre, and the average price received for 2015 was $1,620 per ton. A 100-acre farm with an average yield of 2.01 tons per acre would, therefore, have been expected to produce about 201 tons of walnuts. At $1,620 per ton, that farm's production would have had an approximate value of $325,620. This is well below the SBA threshold of $750,000; thus, it can be concluded that the majority of California's walnut growers are considered small growers according to SBA's definition.

According to information supplied by the industry, approximately two-thirds of California's walnut handlers shipped merchantable walnuts valued under $7,500,000 during the 2016-17 marketing year and would, therefore, be considered small handlers according to the SBA definition.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0465 to $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $24,140,000 and an assessment rate of $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts, which is $0.0065 lower than the assessment rate previously in effect. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2017-18 marketing year is estimated to be 615,000 tons, 62,000 tons greater than the quantity estimated for the 2016-17 marketing year. Therefore, even at the reduced assessment rate, the Board should collect approximately $22,140,000 in assessment income, which, when combined with $2,000,000 from its reserves, should be adequate to cover its budgeted expenses.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to growers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on growers.

In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California walnut industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the May 31, 2017, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously reviewed by OMB and assigned OMB No: 0581-0178 “Vegetable and Specialty Crops.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California walnut handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before September 19, 2017. No comments were received.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=AMS-SC-17-0035.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, 13563, and 13771; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (82 FR 33775, July 21, 2017) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984

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

PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 984, which was published at 82 FR 33775 on July 21, 2017, is adopted as a final rule, without change. Dated: November 22, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-25736 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 986 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-17-0032, SC17-986-2 FR] Pecans Grown in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas; Establishment of Reporting Requirements and New Information Collection AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation made by the American Pecan Council (Council) to establish reporting requirements under the Federal marketing order for pecans (Order). The Council locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of pecans operating within the production area and one public member. This action requires all pecan handlers to submit two forms to the Council: one for inter-handler transfers and another that includes year-end inventory and pecans handled throughout the year. The Council will use this information to facilitate assessment collection and provide valuable reports to the industry, including the annual marketing policy required by the Order.

DATES:

Effective December 28, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennie M. Varela, 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]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 986 (7 CFR part 986) regulating the handling of pecans grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “Order.” The Order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Marketing Order now in effect, pecan handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the reporting requirements issued herein will be applicable to all assessable pecans beginning October 1, 2016, to facilitate the collection of assessments.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule establishes reporting requirements under the Order. This action requires all pecan handlers to submit to the Council reports of inter-handler transfers of pecans, inventory, and a summary of pecans handled. This information will be used to facilitate assessment collection and provide valuable reports to the industry, including the annual marketing policy required by the Order. The Council unanimously recommended this action at its April 17, 2017, meeting.

Section 986.61 of the Order requires all handlers warehousing pecans as of August 31 be identified as the handler of those pecans and pay the assessment rate accordingly. Section 986.62 provides the Council, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary), authority to establish methods and procedures, including necessary reports, to maintain accurate records for inter-handler transfers. Sections 986.75, 986.76, and 986.77 provide authority to prescribe reports of handler inventory, merchantable pecans handled, and pecans received by handlers, respectively. Section 986.78 further provides the Council, with the approval of the Secretary, authority to collect other reports and information from handlers needed to enable the Council to perform its duties. This final rule would utilize these authorities to establish new §§ 986.162 and 986.175 under the rules and regulations of the Order. These new sections would require handlers of pecans to report to the Council any inter-handler transfers, and the volume of shelled, inshell, and total volume of pecans handled each fiscal year by type using specific Council forms.

At its November 16, 2016, meeting, the first meeting following the Order's promulgation, the Council discussed its initial budget, assessment rates, and necessary reporting requirements in order to set up a program that is efficient and responsive to industry needs. During these discussions, the Council established a Statistics and Reporting Committee (Committee) to develop reporting requirements.

Members of the Committee discussed the reporting needs of the industry, reviewed examples of reporting forms from other marketing orders, and met and worked with the staff of another marketing order in developing the reporting requirements. The Committee also worked with USDA to ensure the recommended information collection would provide the information necessary to facilitate the administration of the Order.

At its February 23, 2017, meeting, the Council reviewed drafts of seven reporting forms as developed and recommended by the Committee. The Council expressed its interest in having as much electronic reporting as possible but recognized that many handlers may prefer a paper submission. The Council also considered the timing of when forms would be due and submission dates that would work for all parts of the industry. After a thorough review and some modifications, seven forms were approved by the Council.

At a meeting on April 17, 2017, the Council revisited the recommended reporting requirements and the accompanying forms. Acknowledging the industry was more than halfway through the fiscal year at that time, the Council took action to move forward with the minimum reports necessary to facilitate the collection of assessments and to provide the other information needed for the 2016-17 fiscal year. Specifically, the Council voted to utilize two forms for that fiscal year: One focusing on inter-handler transfers, and one containing information regarding year-end inventory and pecans handled throughout the fiscal year. The Council agreed it still wanted to move forward with all seven forms for the 2017-18 fiscal year but considered year-end reporting on two forms as the most viable option for the first fiscal year of the Order. The remaining five forms will be proposed in a subsequent rulemaking action.

This final rule adds two new reporting requirements and two new forms to the rules and regulations under the Order by adding §§ 986.162 and 986.175. The pecan industry includes a subset of handlers, defined in the Order as accumulators, who compile pecans for the purpose of resale or transfer to another handler. Additionally, small handlers may also sell or transfer pecans to other handlers. During the formal rulemaking hearing, the industry expressed concern that it may be difficult to track pecans moved through accumulators or transferred between handlers. Further, some handlers and accumulators that are small operations may find reporting, recordkeeping, and paying assessments burdensome.

The report of inter-handler transfers includes information on the month of transfer, type of pecans transferred, the volume transferred, the amount of assessments owed on the pecans transferred, identification information and signatures for the two handlers involved, and whether the transferring handler or receiving handler would be responsible for reporting and paying the assessments. This report helps ensure that transferred pecans are not counted twice for volume reporting purposes and will help facilitate the collection of assessments. It will also allow receiving handlers to assume the reporting burden from smaller entities and ensure payment of corresponding assessments.

The Council selected the tenth day of the month following the month of transfer as the due date for reports of inter-handler transfers. Should the tenth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, reports would be due by the first business day following the tenth day of the month. Given that the final rule will publish after the September date, the due date will be extended to December 28, 2017. For subsequent fiscal years, reports of inter-handler transfers will be due on a monthly basis as specified above.

In order to correctly collect assessments, provide industry data, and complete a marketing policy for the coming fiscal year, the Council requires accurate reports of what has been handled and what is in inventory going into the next fiscal year. Based on Council discussions, it is also important for the industry to know the variety and form of the pecans in inventory. This information will be vital to the industry as it enters the next harvest, as the amount and type of inventory impacts prices of the new crop. Collection of this data was one of the industry's goals in promulgating the Order, as currently there is no source for this type of information across the 15-state production area. This information will be captured in the year-end inventory report.

The year-end inventory report includes information on the handler submitting the form, total pounds by type of pecans inshell and shelled in inventory, inventory committed but not shipped for both export and domestic, and any uncommitted inventory. It also includes information on pecans handled throughout the year, as well as data for total inventory, including both shelled and inshell, with shelled volume converted to an inshell basis using the conversion specified in the order (volume shelled × 2). In addition, it includes information regarding total assessments owed, assessments paid to date, and remaining assessments due for that handler.

The Order specifies that on August 31 of each year, every handler warehousing inshell pecans shall be identified as the first handler of those pecans and shall be required to pay the required assessment rate. The Order also specifies that the marketing policy include an estimate of the handler inventory as of August 31. Consequently, the Council selected September 10 as the due date for the year-end inventory report, or the first business day following the tenth of September, should the tenth fall on a weekend or a holiday. The Council believes this would give all handlers sufficient time to submit the information to the Council after August 31. Further, handlers would be required to pay to the Council all remaining unpaid assessments by the due date of the year-end inventory report. As the recommended September 10 due date has passed, for the 2016-17 fiscal year, this report will be due December 28, 2017.

This action requires all pecan handlers to provide the Council with reports of any inter-handler transfers, year-end inventory, and pecans handled throughout the year. This information will facilitate assessment collections, provide valuable reports to the industry, and allow the Council to complete the annual marketing policy required by the order.

The Council also recommended additional reporting requirements, which would be effective for the 2017-18 fiscal year. These requirements are being considered under a separate action.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to determine whether the regulatory action will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 2,500 growers of pecans in the production area and approximately 250 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural growers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the average grower price for pecans during the 2015-16 season was $2.20 per pound, and 254 million pounds were utilized. The value for pecans that year totaled $558.8 million ($2.20 per pound multiplied by 254 million pounds). Taking the total value of production for pecans and dividing it by the total number of pecan growers provides an average return per grower of $223,520. Using the average price and utilization information, and assuming a normal bell-curve distribution of receipts among growers, the majority of growers receive less than $750,000 annually.

Evidence presented at the formal rulemaking hearing indicates an average handler margin of $0.58 per pound. Adding this margin to the average grower price of $2.20 per pound of inshell pecans results in an estimated handler price of $2.78 per pound. With a total 2015 production of 254 million pounds, the total value of production in 2015 was $706.12 million ($2.78 per pound multiplied by 254 million pounds). Taking the total value of production for pecans and dividing it by the total number of pecan handlers provides an average return per handler of $2,824,480. Using this estimated price, the utilization volume, number of handlers, and assuming a normal bell-curve distribution of receipts among handlers, the majority of handlers have annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. Thus, the majority of growers and handlers of pecans grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas may be classified as small entities.

This final rule establishes reporting requirements under the order. This action requires all pecan handlers to provide the Council with reports of any inter-handler transfers, year-end inventory, and pecans handled throughout the year. This information will facilitate the Council's collection of assessments and provide valuable reports to the industry. This rule establishes new §§ 986.162 and 986.175 under the rules and regulations of the order. The authority for this action is provided for in §§ 986.62, 986.75, 986.76, 986.77, and 986.78 of the order.

Requiring reports of transfers, handler inventory, and pecans handled throughout the year will impose an increase in the reporting burden on all pecan handlers. However, this data is already recorded and maintained by handlers as a part of their daily business. Handlers, regardless of size, should be able to readily access this information. Consequently, any additional costs associated with this change would be minimal (not significant) and apply equally to all handlers.

This action should also help the entire industry by providing comprehensive data on pecans handled and year-end inventory. Collection of this data was one of the industry's goals in promulgating the order as there is no other source for this type of data. This information should help with marketing and planning for the industry, as well as provide important information for the collection of assessments and in preparing the annual marketing policy required by the order. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all pecan growers and handlers, regardless of their size.

The Council discussed other alternatives to this action, including having additional reporting requirements, but determined that in order to efficiently carry out the objectives of the marketing order this first fiscal year, the information collected in these two reports would be sufficient. The Council also considered requiring the inter-handler transfer form to be submitted for each transfer. However, the Council determined that could be burdensome for some handlers, and a monthly report would provide the necessary documentation. Therefore, the alternatives were rejected.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this collection has been submitted to OMB with the reference number 0581-0303. Upon approval, the collection will be merged with OMB No. 0581-0291, “Federal Marketing Order for Pecans.” This final rule establishes the use of two new Council forms, which impose a total annual burden increase of 185 hours. The forms, Report of Inter-Handler Transfer of Pecans and Year End Inventory Report, require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the order. The information would enable the Council to facilitate assessment collection and provide valuable reports to the industry.

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

As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. Further, the public comment received concerning the proposal did not address the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

The Council's meetings were widely publicized throughout the pecan industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Council deliberations on all issues. Additionally, the Council's Committee meetings held February 23, 2017, and April 17, 2017, were also public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2017 (82 FR 33829). Copies of the rule were sent via email to all Council members and known pecan handlers. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period ending September 19, 2017, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal.

One comment was received in favor of the proposed information collection. The commenter stated the proposed requirements were necessary in order to better assess the pecan crop. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received. Minor editorial changes were made to the rule for the purpose of clarity. The name of Subpart B was corrected to read as SUBPART B—Administrative Provisions and the lists in §§ 986.162 and 986.175 now include an “and.”

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously-mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Council and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 986

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

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 986 is amended as follows:

PART 986—PECANS GROWN IN THE STATES OF ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSOURI, MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TEXAS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 986 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Add § 986.162 to read as follows:
§ 986.162 Inter-handler transfers.

(a) Inter-handler transfers of inshell pecans, pursuant to § 986.62, shall be reported to the Council on APC Form 4. Handlers shall file reports by the tenth day of the month following the month of transfer. Should the tenth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, reports are due by the first business day following the tenth day of the month; Provided, that for the 2016-17 fiscal year, all inter-handler transfer forms shall be submitted by December 28, 2017. The report shall contain the following information:

(1) Month of transfer;

(2) The type and weight of pecans transferred;

(3) The amount of assessments owed on the pecans transferred;

(4) The names and signatures for both the transferring and receiving handlers; and

(5) Handler assuming the reporting and assessment obligations on the pecans transferred.

3. Add § 986.175 to read as follows:
§ 986.175 Handler inventory.

(a) Handlers shall submit to the Council a year-end inventory report following August 31 each fiscal year. Handlers shall file such reports by September 10. Should September 10 fall on a weekend, reports are due by the first business day following September 10; Provided, that for the 2016-17 fiscal year, all inventory reports shall be submitted by December 28, 2017. Such reports shall be reported to the Council on APC Form 7 and include:

(1) The name and address of the handler;

(2) The total weight and type of inshell pecans in inventory, regardless of country of origin;

(3) The total weight and type of shelled pecans in inventory, regardless of country of origin;

(4) The total weight and type of inshell pecans committed, not shipped, for export and domestic shipments, and any uncommitted inventory, regardless of country of origin;

(5) The total weight and type of shelled pecans committed, not shipped, for export and domestic shipments, and any uncommitted inventory, regardless of country of origin;

(6) The combined total inventory for inshell and shelled pecans calculated on an inshell basis, and combined weight committed, not shipped, for exports and domestic shipments, and any uncommitted inventory;

(7) Total weight and type of domestic pecans handled for the fiscal year; and

(8) Total assessments owed, assessments paid to date, and remaining assessments due to be paid by the due date of the year-end inventory report for the fiscal year.

Dated: November 22, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-25735 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0526; Product Identifier 2017-NM-026-AD; Amendment 39-19109; AD 2017-24-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the upper aft skin at the rear spar of the wings. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective January 2, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0526.

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-2017-0526; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2017 (82 FR 25744). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in the upper aft skin at the rear spar of the wings. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings, and repair if necessary.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

Southwest Airlines requested clarification that additional alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approvals are not necessary during accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017, if the installation of winglets was done using STC ST01219SE.

We agree with the commenters' statements. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request To Revise Certain Corrective Action Requirements

All Nippon Airways (ANA) asked that we revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to change the compliance method for crack repair to allow use of the Boeing 737-500 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) 57-20-10, Repair 7. ANA stated that Boeing has already developed the repair procedure for the outer wing upper aft skin at the trailing edge between wing buttock line (WBL) 160 and WBL 205, as specified in Boeing 737-500 SRM 57-20-10, Repair 7. ANA added that the repair procedure is applicable to part of an inspection area specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017. ANA noted that its request should be considered to reduce AMOC requests.

We disagree with the request. Boeing has indicated that Repair 7 of the SRM is currently being revised. We do not consider that delaying this rulemaking until release of the revised service information is warranted. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative service information if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the service information would provide an acceptable level of safety. Boeing has indicated it intends to request approval of a global AMOC for the revised service information after this AD is published. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Requirements

Boeing asked that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, and the heading for paragraph (g), be changed to include “corrective actions” to clarify that corrective actions may be required.

We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.

Boeing also asked that the header for paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be changed to remove “repetitive” because merely specifying “inspections” addresses both initial and repetitive inspections.

We agree to clarify the terminology in the header for paragraph (h) of this AD. We do not presume that the term “repetitive” necessarily excludes the initial action. An action cannot be repeated without accomplishment of the initial action. Many existing ADs use the term “repetitive” actions, which we intend as including the initial action. Therefore, we have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive surface high frequency eddy current inspections, low frequency eddy current inspections, and detailed inspections on airplanes with or without an external repair, for cracking of the upper aft skin from WBL 159 to WBL 220. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 471 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection Up to 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $765 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $765 per inspection cycle Up to $360,315 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-24-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19109; Docket No. FAA-2017-0526; Product Identifier 2017-NM-026-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 2, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -.200, -.200C, -.300, -.400, and -.500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/48e13cdfbbc32cf4862576a4005d308b/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the upper aft skin at the rear spar of the wings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the upper aft skin of the wings, which could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit load, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) For Group 1 Airplanes: Inspection and Corrective Actions

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings, and do all applicable corrective actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (h) For Groups 2 and 3 Airplanes: Repetitive Inspections and Repair

    For Groups 2 and 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do the applicable inspection for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings from wing buttock line (WBL) 159 to WBL 220, in accordance with the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017. If any cracking is found, repair before further flight, in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017.

    (i) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” paragraph (h) of this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1329, dated January 16, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 15, 2017. Chris Spangenberg, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25379 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0478; Product Identifier 2016-NM-174-AD; Amendment 39-19087; AD 2017-22-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of cracks on frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the frame forks, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also includes optional modifications that constitute terminating action. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective January 2, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0478.

    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-2017-0478; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2017 (82 FR 23160) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracks on frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the frame forks, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also included optional modifications that constitute terminating action. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks on the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors, which could lead to reduced structural integrity and failure of the cargo compartment door, possible decompression of the airplane, and injury to occupants.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0187, dated September 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During full scale fatigue test, cracks have been found on frame forks and outer skin on forward and aft cargo doors.

    To improve the fatigue behaviour of the frame forks, Airbus introduced modification (mod) 22948 in production, and issued inspection Service Bulletin (SB) A320-52-1032 and modification SB A320-52-1042, both recommended.

    Since those actions were taken, further improved cargo compartment doors have been introduced in production through Airbus mod 26213, on aeroplanes having [manufacturer serial number] MSN 0759 and up. This modification, which is not available for in-service retrofit, also includes provisions that exclude installation of pre-mod 26213 aft and forward compartment cargo doors on an aeroplane.

    In the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) study, it has been determined that repetitive inspections are necessary for aft and forward cargo compartment doors on aeroplanes that do not (or no longer) embody mod 22948 (or SB A320-52-1042), and those that do not embody mod 26213. Failure to detect cracks would reduce the cargo door structural integrity.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to cargo door failure, possibly resulting in decompression of the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB A320-52-1171 to provide inspection instructions. This SB was later revised to correct the list of affected cargo doors. Airbus also issued SB A320-52-1170, introducing a door modification which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive special detailed inspection (SDI).

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires accomplishment of repetitive SDI by rototest of all frame forks in beam 4 area to detect cracks, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [repair or replacement]. This AD also provides an optional [modification that constitutes] terminating action for the repetitive SDI required by this [EASA] AD.

    One of the optional modifications includes related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative action is a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracks, and the corrective action is a repair. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0478.

    Comments

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

    Requests To Refer to Updated Service Information

    Delta Air Lines and United Airlines requested that we revise the NPRM to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017. United Airlines mentioned that Airbus has made number of updates and clarifications in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017. Additionally, United Airlines pointed out that EASA AD 2016-0187, dated September 19, 2016, quoted in the “Discussion” section of the NPRM, allows for use of later approved revisions.

    We agree with the commenters for the reasons provided. We have revised this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017. We have also redesignated paragraph (m) (of the proposed AD) as paragraph (m)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (m)(2) to provide credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD, if those actions were done using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 01, dated September 5, 2016.

    Request To Clarify That Certain Service Information Cancels the Requirements of Certain Other Service Information

    United Airlines requested that we clarify that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, cancels the requirements of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1032. The commenter indicated that a statement regarding this subject would clarify the required actions for operators. The commenter also pointed out that a statement is listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, that specifies the cancellation of the requirements of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1032.

    We agree to clarify. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, does include a statement indicating that the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, cancel the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1032. However, the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1032 are not required by any AD, and therefore, we do not specifically address Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1032 in this AD (except for the compliance time reference in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD). We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Update the NPRM To Include Modifications 22948 and 26213

    Delta Air Lines requested that we revise paragraphs (c) and (g) of the proposed AD to refer to Modifications 22948 and 26213. Specifically, Delta Air Lines requested that we include information that elaborates on the specific airplanes affected by the NPRM. Delta Air Lines pointed out that EASA AD 2016-0187, dated September 19, 2016, quoted in the “Discussion” section of the NPRM, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2, dated January 14, 1997, already refer to the modifications. Delta Air Lines also mentioned that it has 40 forward and aft cargo compartment doors affected by the NPRM, which are pre-Modifications 22948 and 26213 and under manufacturer serial number 0758.

    We disagree to refer to Modifications 22948 and 26213 in paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD; however, we agree that clarification is necessary. The applicability of this AD refers to the affected models having manufacturer serial numbers through 0758 inclusive; all airplanes having these serial numbers are affected by the identified unsafe condition. Airbus introduced modification 22948 in production, and issued Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1032 for recommended inspections and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042 for recommended modification 22948. Since that service information was issued, Airbus has introduced further improved forward and aft cargo compartment doors (modification 26213) in production on airplanes having manufacturer serial number 0759 and above; however, this modification is unavailable for in-service retrofit. Modification 26213 includes provisions that prohibit installation of earlier configurations of forward or aft cargo compartment doors (pre-modification 26213). Airplanes having manufacturer serial numbers 0759 and subsequent have modification 26213 installed in production. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Include Instructions for Rotable Parts

    Delta Air Lines requested that we include instructions for rotable parts in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. The commenter mentioned that forward or aft cargo compartment doors could be migrated from manufacturer serial number 0759 and above to airplanes that are affected, and asked if those airplanes are still affected. The commenter also requested that Airbus provide a list of manufacturer serial numbers that are affected by the proposed AD.

    We partially agree with the commenter. Airplanes originally delivered with the affected doors are subject to the requirements of this AD. Paragraph (h) of this AD only requires actions on affected doors. It is not physically possible to install the affected doors on serial numbers 0759 and above; therefore, parts rotability does not need to be addressed in this AD.

    In addition, paragraph (n) of this AD provides a parts installation limitation for the forward or aft cargo compartment doors for the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD. We have no practical method to provide a manufacturer serial number list of affected airplanes on which a non-affected door might have been installed or to predict an airplane configuration in the worldwide fleet. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Clarify Optional Terminating Actions

    United Airlines requested that we clarify the optional terminating actions specified in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD. The commenter requested we include a statement that specifies modification of all affected doors of an airplane in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD constitutes terminating action. The commenter pointed out that EASA AD 2016-0187, dated September 19, 2016, quoted in the “Discussion” section of the NPRM, allows for modification of an airplane as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2, dated January 14, 1997; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016; and either is considered terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

    We agree that clarification is necessary. We have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to include introductory text with the statement: “Modification of all affected doors of an airplane in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD constitutes terminating action . . . .”

    Request To Include Compliance Times for Optional Terminating Actions

    Mr. Petit requested that we add compliance times for the optional terminating actions specified in the proposed AD. Mr. Petit indicated that 14 CFR 26.21 might require a mandatory terminating action before 56,300 flight cycles. Mr. Petit also recommended that the optional terminating action not be embodied before 21,700 flight cycles.

    We disagree with the commenter's request to include compliance times for the optional terminating action specified in this AD. 14 CFR 26.21 mandates the limit of validity (LOV) and does not specify compliance times for the optional terminating action specified in this AD. This AD mandates repetitive inspections of the frame forks as specified in the service information provided by the design approval holder (DAH) to meet the LOV. In addition, we do not include compliance times for optional actions in ADs because doing so would make the actions mandatory. We intend for the terminating actions in this AD to be optional, which aligns with the MCAI.

    Regarding the commenter's recommendation to prohibit accomplishing the optional terminating action before 21,700 flight cycles, the commenter provided no substantiation for this prohibition. We have received no data indicating that the optional terminating action should not be accomplished before 21,700 flight cycles. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Clarification of Exception

    Paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD, which refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016, includes an exception as specified in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD. However, paragraph (k) of the proposed AD does not mention Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016. We have added Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016, to the exception specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, describes procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections of all frame forks in the beam 4 area of any affected door, and corrective actions.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2, dated January 14, 1997, describes procedures for modification of all affected forward and aft cargo compartment doors of an airplane.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016, describes modification of all affected forward and aft cargo compartment doors of an airplane, including related investigative and corrective actions.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 88 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Special detailed inspection 25 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,125 $0 $2,125 $187,000
    Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Modification 24 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,040 Up to $240 Up to $2,280.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs and replacements specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-22-07 Airbus: Amendment 39-19087; Docket No. FAA-2017-0478; Product Identifier 2016-NM-174-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 2, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers through 0758 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks on the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks on the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors, which could lead to reduced structural integrity and failure of the cargo compartment door, possible decompression of the airplane, and injury to occupants.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Definition of Affected Door

    For the purpose of this AD, an “affected door” is a forward or aft cargo compartment door, having any part number listed in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, except a cargo compartment door on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042 or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170 is embodied.

    ER28NO17.017 (h) Repetitive Special Detailed Inspection of Frame Forks

    At the latest of the compliance times listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD: Do a special detailed inspection of all frame forks in the beam 4 area of any affected door as defined in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, except as specified in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. A review of the airplane delivery or maintenance records is acceptable to identify any affected door installed on the airplane, provided that the cargo compartment door part number can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (1) Before exceeding 37,500 flight cycles since first installation of the door on an airplane.

    (2) Within 900 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, without exceeding 41,950 flight cycles since first installation of the door on an airplane.

    (3) Within 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, for a door having reached or exceeded 41,900 flight cycles since first installation on an airplane.

    (4) Within 3,000 flight cycles since the last inspection of the door as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1032.

    (i) Corrective Actions

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, except as specified in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD. Accomplishment of applicable corrective actions does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

    (j) Optional Terminating Action

    Modification of all affected doors of an airplane in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane.

    (1) Modification of all affected doors of an airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2, dated January 14, 1997, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, provided that, after modification, no affected door is re-installed on that airplane.

    (2) Modification of all affected doors of an airplane including accomplishment of all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, provided that, after modification, no affected door is re-installed on that airplane.

    (3) Modification of all affected doors on an airplane, in case of finding damaged frame forks, as specified in an Airbus Repair Design Approval Sheet (RDAS), and done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, provided that, after modification, no affected door is re-installed on that airplane.

    (k) Exception to Service Information

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017; specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o)(2) of this AD.

    (l) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action as “RC,” this AD does not include that requirement.

    (m) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, dated October 29, 2015, provided that it can be conclusively determined that any part number D52371000018 was also inspected as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 01, dated September 5, 2016.

    (n) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an affected door specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, unless it has been inspected in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD and all applicable corrective actions have been done in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

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

    (p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0187, dated September 19, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0478.

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

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

    (q) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2, dated January 14, 1997 (pages 5, 9, and 19 through 22 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated November 22, 1993).

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated September 5, 2016.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 17, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-23349 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0933; Product Identifier 2017-SW-051-AD; Amendment 39-19106; AD 2017-24-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This AD requires amending the rotorcraft flight manual to establish a minimum airspeed limitation for the autopilot cruise height mode. This AD is prompted by two reports of uncommanded helicopter climbs and descents. The actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective December 13, 2017.

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

    We must receive comments on this AD by January 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

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

    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-2017-0933; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency AD, any incorporated by reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/Web site/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0933.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2017-0146, dated August 10, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. EASA advises that two incidents of uncommanded helicopter climbs and descents have been reported following activation of the autopilot cruise height (CRHT) mode concurrently with the ground trajectory command in hover mode (GTCH). EASA advises this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to temporary loss of control of the helicopter or injury to the helicopter's occupants. To address this unsafe condition, EASA requires a minimum airspeed limitation of 40 knots for the autopilot CRHT mode. Since the rotorcraft cannot enter GTCH mode at speeds above 40 knots, under this limitation, CRHT mode will not be engaged concurrently with GTCH mode. EASA considers its AD interim action, pending an autopilot software upgrade to prevent further occurrences.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters BK117 D-2 Flight Manual Temporary Revision No. 1, dated March 28, 2017, for Model BK117 D-2 helicopters, and Airbus Helicopters BK117 D-2 (Helionix Step 2) Flight Manual Temporary Revision No. 1, dated March 28, 2017, for Model BK117 D-2 helicopters with Helionix Step 2. These temporary revisions establish a minimum airspeed limitation of 40 knots for the autopilot CRHT mode.

    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.

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within 10 hours time-in-service, revising the Operating Limitations section of the rotorcraft flight manual by adding a minimum airspeed limitation for the autopilot of 40 knots when CRHT mode is engaged.

    Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 16 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that making the required changes to the rotorcraft flight manual will require 0.5 work-hour and no parts are needed for a cost of $43 per helicopter and $688 for the U.S. fleet.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 10 hours time-in-service.

    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days.

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-24-02 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Amendment 39-19106; Docket No. FAA-2017-0933; Product Identifier 2017-SW-051-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a helicopter making an uncommanded climb or descent. This condition could result in loss of helicopter control.

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 13, 2017.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    Within 10 hours time-in-service, revise the Operating limitations section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual by adding the information in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD under Autopilot Limitations. Inserting Airbus Helicopters BK117 D-2 Flight Manual Temporary Revision No. 1, dated March 28, 2017, or Airbus Helicopters BK117 D-2 (Helionix Step 2) Flight Manual Temporary Revision No. 1, dated March 28, 2017, into the RFM is acceptable for compliance with this AD.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (e) Operating limitations of the autopilot Minimum airspeed with CRHT mode engaged 40 kt (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected].

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2017-0146, dated August 10, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0933.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2210, Autopilot System.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Helicopters BK117 D-2 Flight Manual Temporary Revision No. 1, dated March 28, 2017.

    (ii) Airbus Helicopters BK117 D-2 (Helionix Step 2) Flight Manual Temporary Revision No. 1, dated March 28, 2017.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/Website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html.

    (4) You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 9, 2017. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25189 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0491; Product Identifier 2016-SW-020-AD; Amendment 39-19031; AD 2017-19-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and S-76D helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the main rotor (M/R) servo pushrod (pushrod) assembly and applying slippage marks. This AD was prompted by an accident of a Sikorsky Model S-76C helicopter caused by a failed pushrod assembly. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective January 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email: [email protected] You may review a copy of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    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-2017-0491; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7161; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    On June 5, 2017, at 82 FR 25748, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and S-76D helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 761075, with an M/R pushrod assembly part number (P/N) 76400-00034-059, 76400-00014-074, 76400-00014-076, or 76400-00014-077 installed. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting each pushrod assembly and applying two slippage marks across each control rod and jamnut. Depending on the outcome of the inspection, the NPRM proposed to require replacing the pushrod assembly or inspecting the jamnut. Depending on the outcome of inspecting the jamnut, the NPRM proposed to require replacing the pushrod assembly or applying 140 inch-pounds of torque to the jamnut. The proposed requirements were intended to detect a loose jamnut and prevent failure of the pushrod assembly, loss of M/R flight control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service has changed its organizational structure. The new structure replaces product directorates with functional divisions. We have revised some of the office titles and nomenclature throughout this Final rule to reflect the new organizational changes. Additional information about the new structure can be found in the Notice published on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 34564).

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed Sikorksy S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 76-67-58, Basic Issue, dated November 19, 2015 (ASB), which specifies a one-time inspection of the M/R forward, aft, and lateral pushrod assemblies and jamnuts for proper installation, condition, and security. If a pushrod or jamnut does not meet criteria specified in the inspections, the ASB specifies replacing the assembly. The ASB also specifies applying torque to each jamnut and applying two slippage marks across each control rod and jamnut.

    Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The Sikorsky ASB specifies returning any removed M/R pushrod assembly to Sikorsky. This AD does not require returning any parts to Sikorsky.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 198 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Inspecting the M/R pushrod assemblies takes about 2.2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $187 per helicopter and $37,026 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing an M/R pushrod assembly takes about 2 work-hours for a labor cost of $170. Parts to replace M/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00034-059 cost about $2,411 for a total estimated replacement cost of $2,581. Parts to replace M/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00014-074 cost about $2,224 for a total estimated replacement cost of $2,394. Parts to replace M/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00014-076 cost about $2,488 for a total estimated replacement cost of $2,658. Parts to replace M/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00014-077 cost about $2,414 for a total estimated replacement cost of $2,584. It takes a minimal amount of time to apply the slippage marks for a negligible cost.

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-19-01 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-19031; Docket No. FAA-2017-0491; Product Identifier 2016-SW-020-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and S-76D helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 761075, with a main rotor (M/R) servo pushrod (pushrod) assembly part number (P/N) 76400-00034-059, 76400-00014-074, 76400-00014-076, or 76400-00014-077 installed, certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD:

    M/R pushrod P/N 76400-00034-059 is included in the Applicability section of AD 2015-19-51, Amendment 39-18300 (80 FR 65128, October 26, 2015). This AD does not affect AD 2015-19-51.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a loose jamnut. This condition could result in failure of a pushrod assembly, loss of M/R flight control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 2, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    Within 300 hours time-in-service:

    (1) Inspect the control rod of each pushrod assembly (control rod) to determine whether 0.020 inch diameter lockwire can pass through the inspection hole.

    (i) If the lockwire passes through the inspection hole, before further flight, replace the pushrod assembly.

    (ii) If the lockwire does not pass through the inspection hole, inspect the jamnut to determine whether it is seated against the control rod and whether it can be turned with finger pressure.

    (A) If the jamnut is not seated against the control rod or can be turned with finger pressure, before further flight, replace the pushrod assembly.

    (B) If the jamnut is seated against the control rod and cannot be turned with finger pressure, using a pushrod tool, apply 140 inch-pounds of torque to the jamnut.

    (2) Apply two slippage marks across each control rod and jamnut as follows:

    (i) Clean the area where a slippage mark is to be applied.

    (ii) Apply two slippage marks across the control rod and jamnut, parallel and on opposite sides of each other. Each slippage mark must extend at least 0.5 inch onto the control rod and must not cover the inspection hole. Figure 1 (Sheet 2) of Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 76-67-58, Basic Issue, dated November 19, 2015, illustrates a slippage mark across a control rod and jamnut.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7161; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    Sikorksy S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 76-67-58, Basic Issue, dated November 19, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email: [email protected] You may review a copy of this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6700, Rotorcraft Flight Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 17, 2017. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25558 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0690; Product Identifier 2017-NM-061-AD; Amendment 39-19107; AD 2017-24-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-01-06, which applied to certain Airbus Model A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-232, A321-211, A321-213, and A321-231 airplanes. AD 2017-01-06 required inspection and replacement of certain tie rod assemblies installed on the hinged fairing assembly of the main landing gear (MLG). We issued AD 2017-01-06 to detect and correct the absence of cadmium plating on the rod end threads of the tie rod assemblies. Since we issued AD 2017-01-06, we have determined that although cadmium plating might be absent, the rod end threads of the tie rod assemblies can withstand the expected environmental conditions, therefore the unsafe condition, as initially determined, does not exist.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective January 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0690.

    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-2017-0690; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2017-01-06, Amendment 39-18773 (82 FR 4773, January 17, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-06”). AD 2017-01-06 applied to certain Airbus Model A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-232, A321-211, A321-213, and A321-231 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2017 (82 FR 32650). The NPRM was prompted by our determination that, although cadmium plating might be absent, the rod end threads of the tie rod assemblies installed on the hinged fairing assembly of the MLG can withstand the expected environmental conditions, therefore the unsafe condition, as initially determined, does not exist. The NPRM proposed to remove AD 2017-01-06. We are issuing this AD to remove AD 2017-01-06.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0234-CN, dated April 28, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to cancel EASA AD 2015-0234-CN, which applied to certain Airbus Model A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-232, A321-211, A321-213, and A321-231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A production quality issue was identified concerning tie rod assemblies, having [a] Part Number starting with D52840212000 or D52840212002, which are installed on the main landing gear (MLG) hinged fairing assembly. This quality issue affects the cadmium plating surface treatment which was inadvertently omitted from the rod end threads of the assembly. The absence of cadmium plating reduces the corrosion protection scheme.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, was initially assessed as leading to galvanic corrosion of the tie rod end threads, possibly resulting in rod end failure, loss of a MLG door, and consequent injury to persons on ground.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus identified the affected MSN [manufacturer serial number] and issued SB A320-52-1167 to provide inspection instructions.

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0234 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-01-06], requiring a one-time inspection of the affected MLG hinged fairing tie rod assemblies, and, depending on findings, replacement of the affected tie rod assembly.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, tests performed by the tie rod assembly manufacturers determined that the assemblies, even without cadmium plating surface treatment on the rod end threads, can withstand the expected environmental conditions. The consequence is that the unsafe condition, as initially determined, does not exist.

    For the reasons described above, this Notice cancels EASA AD 2015-0234.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0690.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Costs of Compliance

    AD 2017-01-06 affected about 20 airplanes of U.S. registry. The estimated cost of the actions required by AD 2017-01-06 for U.S. operators was $3,400, or $170, per product. Removing AD 2017-01-06 eliminates those costs.

    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.

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-01-06, Amendment 39-18773 (82 FR 4773, January 17, 2017), and adding the following new AD: 2017-24-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-19107; Docket No. FAA-2017-0690; Product Identifier 2017-NM-061-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This rescission is effective January 2, 2018.

    (b) Affected AD

    This action removes AD 2017-01-06, Amendment 39-18773 (82 FR 4773, January 17, 2017).

    (c) Applicability

    This action applies to Airbus Model A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-232, A321-211, A321-213, and A321-231 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1167, dated August 6, 2015.

    (d) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) AD 2015-0234-CN, dated April 28, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0690.

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

    (e) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 15, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25253 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 23 RIN 3038-AC97 Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants; Correction AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is correcting a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2016. The rule, concerning margin requirements for uncleared swaps for swap dealers and major swap participants, took effect on April 1, 2016. This correction rectifies errors in cross-references in a particular section of the final rule.

    DATES:

    Effective on November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Smith, Deputy Director, 202-418-5495, [email protected], or Mark Bretscher, Attorney-Advisor, 312-596-0529, [email protected], Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of January 6, 2016 (81 FR 636), the CFTC published final rules adopting new regulations to implement a particular provision of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), as added by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).1 This provision requires the Commission to adopt initial and variation margin requirements for certain swap dealers and major swap participants. In implementing the regulations, staff has discovered cross-reference errors in § 23.156 of the regulations. As published, 17 CFR 23.156(a)(3) includes erroneous cross-references to 17 CFR 23.156(a)(1)(iv). Instead, the cross-references should be to 17 CFR 23.156(a)(1)(v). Accordingly, the Commission is making a correcting amendment to 17 CFR 23.156(a)(3) that removes the erroneous cross-references to 17 CFR 23.156(a)(1)(iv) and replaces them with corrected cross-references to 17 CFR 23.156(a)(1)(v).

    1See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 23

    Swaps, Swap dealers, Major swap participants, Capital and margin requirements.

    Accordingly, 17 CFR part 23 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

    PART 23—SWAP DEALERS AND MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS 1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6b-1, 6c, 6p, 6r, 6s, 6t, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21.

    2. In § 23.156, revise paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) to read as follows:
    § 23.156 Forms of margin.

    (a) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (B) The discounts set forth in the following table:

    Standardized Haircut Schedule Cash in same currency as swap obligation 0.0 Eligible government and related debt (e.g., central bank, multilateral development bank, GSE securities identified in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section): Residual maturity less than one-year 0.5 Eligible government and related debt (e.g., central bank, multilateral development bank, GSE securities identified in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section): Residual maturity between one and five years 2.0 Eligible government and related debt (e.g., central bank, multilateral development bank, GSE securities identified in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section): Residual maturity greater than five years 4.0 Eligible corporate debt (including eligible GSE debt securities not identified in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section): Residual maturity less than one-year 1.0 Eligible corporate debt (including eligible GSE debt securities not identified in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section): Residual maturity between one and five years 4.0 Eligible corporate debt (including eligible GSE debt securities not identified in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section): Residual maturity greater than five years 8.0 Equities included in S&P 500 or related index 15.0 Equities included in S&P 1500 Composite or related index but not S&P 500 or related index 25.0 Gold 15.0 Additional (additive) haircut on asset in which the currency of the swap obligation differs from that of the collateral asset 8.0
    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2017, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix to Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants; Correction—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25627 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-1053] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Delaware River, Pipeline Removal, Marcus Hook, PA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 250-yard radius of Commerce Construction vessels and machinery conducting diving and pipeline removal operations in the Delaware River, in the vicinity of Anchorage 7, near Marcus Hook, PA. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by diving and pipeline removal operations. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from November 28, 2017 through December 8, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from November 21, 2017 through November 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-1053 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Amanda Boone, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; telephone (215) 271-4889, email [email protected].

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

    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 because notification of this pipeline removal project was not given to the Coast Guard until November 15, 2017. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by November 21, 2017.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to address the potential safety hazards associated with diving and pipeline removal operations.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay has determined that potential hazards associated with diving and pipe removal operations starting November 21, 2017, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 250-yard radius of diving and pipe removal vessels and machinery. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the operations are being conducted.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday, from November 21, 2017 through December 8, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 250 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel to conduct diving and pipe removal operations. There are three sections of pipeline that will be removed. The first two sections of pipeline to be removed are in Anchorage No. 7, Marcus Hook Anchorage, in the Delaware River. During removal of these sections of pipeline, the safety zone will restrict vessels from anchoring in the lower portion of Anchorage No. 7. During removal of the third section of pipeline, operations will be conducted within the main navigational channel and vessels will be required to transit through the lower portion of Anchorage No. 7.

    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels wishing to transit the safety zone in the main navigational channel may do so if they can make satisfactory passing arrangements with the towing vessel JOKER in accordance with the Navigational Rules in 33 CFR subchapter E via VHF-FM channel 13 or 80 at least 1 hour, as well as 30 minutes, prior to arrival to arrange safe passage. If vessels are unable to make satisfactory passing arrangements with the towing vessel JOKER, they may request permission from the COTP, or his designated representative, on VHF-FM channel 16. All vessels must operate at the minimum safe speed necessary to maintain steerage and reduce wake. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16, Local Notice to Mariners, and Marine Safety Information Bulletin further defining specific work locations and traffic patterns.

    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 size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Delaware River from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday from November 21, 2017 through December 8, 2017 Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16, Local Notice to Mariners, and Marine Safety Information Bulletin about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the 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 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 that will prohibit entry within 250 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel to conduct diving and pipe removal operations. 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.T05-1053 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-1053 Safety Zone, Delaware River; Pipeline Removal; Marcus Hook, PA

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones: all navigable waters within 250 yards of the towing vessel JOKER, Commerce Construction crane barge KELLY, and associated diving and pipe removal vessels, as well as any associated equipment, operating in Marcus Hook Range and Anchorage No. 7 near Marcus Hook, PA, on the Delaware River.

    (b) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, to assist with the enforcement of safety zones described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33 CFR part 165 subpart C apply to the safety zone created by this section.

    (1) Entry into or transiting within either safety zone is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the Captain of the Port via VHF-FM channel 16, or make satisfactory passing arrangements via VHF-FM channels 13 or 80, with the towing vessel JOKER per this section and the rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E). Vessels requesting to transit shall contact the towing vessel JOKER on channel 13 or 80 at least 1 hour, as well as 30 minutes, prior to arrival.

    (2) Vessels granted permission to enter and transit the safety zone must do so in accordance with any directions or orders of the Captain of the Port, his designated representative, or the towing vessel JOKER. No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port or the towing vessel JOKER.

    (3) There are three sections of pipeline that will be removed. The first two sections of pipeline to be removed are in Anchorage No. 7, Marcus Hook Anchorage, in the Delaware River. During removal of these sections of pipeline, the safety zone will restrict vessels from anchoring in the lower portion of Anchorage No. 7.

    (4) During removal of the third section of pipeline, operations will be conducted within the main navigational channel and vessels will be required to transit through the lower portion of Anchorage No. 7. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16, Local Notice to Mariners, and Marine Safety Information Bulletin further defining specific work locations and traffic patterns.

    (5) All vessels must operate at the minimum safe speed necessary to maintain steerage and reduce wake.

    (6) This section applies to all vessels that intend to transit through the safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations: enforcement of laws, service of aids to navigation, and emergency response.

    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from November 21, 2017, through December 8, 2017.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Scott E. Anderson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25613 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0515; FRL-9971-22-Region 7] Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Due to adverse comments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the direct final rule for “Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard” published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2017. The direct final rule was an approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 110 of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

    DATES:

    The direct final rule published at 82 FR 46672, October 6, 2017, is withdrawn effective November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to adverse comments, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule to approve the states “infrastructure” SIP revision for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In the direct final rule published on October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46672), EPA stated that if it received adverse comment by November 6, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received adverse comments. EPA will address the comments in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on October 6, 2017 at 82 FR 46742. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 16, 2017. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.1320(e) published on October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46672) is withdrawn effective November 28, 2017.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25568 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0356; FRL-9971-21-Region 7] Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Due to adverse comments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the direct final rule for “Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard” published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2017. The direct final rule was an approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 110 of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

    DATES:

    The direct final rule published at 82 FR 46679, October 6, 2017, is withdrawn effective November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to adverse comments, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule to approve the states “infrastructure” SIP revision for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. In the direct final rule published on October 6, 2017, (82 FR 46679), EPA stated that if it received adverse comment by November 6, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received adverse comments. EPA will address the comments in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on October 6, 2017 at 82 FR 46741. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

    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: November 16, 2017. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.1320(e) published on October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46679) is withdrawn effective November 28, 2017.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25569 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0485; FRL-9971-15-Region 7] Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality Implementation Plan, Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Program; Revision to Nebraska Administrative Code; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Due to adverse comments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the direct final rule for “Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality Implementation Plan, Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Program; Revision to Nebraska Administrative Code,” published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2017. Nebraska's SIP revision revised two chapters, “Definitions” and “Operating Permit Modifications; Reopening for Cause”. Specifically, these revisions incorporated by reference the list of organic compounds exempt from the definition of volatile organic compound (VOC) found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Notification requirements for the operating permit program were amended to be consistent with the Federal operating permit program requirements, and the definition of “solid waste” was revised by the state. However, because the state's definition is inconsistent with the Federal definition, EPA was not approving the definition into the SIP. Finally, the state extended the process of “off-permit changes” to Class 1 operating permits. Additional grammatical and editorial changes were made in this revision.

    DATES:

    The direct final rule published at 82 FR 46420, October 5, 2017, is withdrawn effective November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Greg Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7391, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to adverse comments, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule to approve revisions to the Nebraska State Implementation Plan (SIP), Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) program; Revision to Nebraska Administrative Code. In the direct final rule published on October 5, 2017, (82 FR 46420), we stated that if we received adverse comment by November 6, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received adverse comments. EPA will address the comments in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on October 5, 2017 (82 FR 46453). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 70

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

    Dated: November 16, 2017. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Accordingly, the direct final rule published on October 5, 2017 (82 FR 46420), is withdrawn effective November 28, 2017.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25576 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0616; FRL-9970-06] Polyethyleneimine; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyethyleneimine when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation on growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of polyethyleneimine when used as an inert in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 28, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 29, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0616, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0616 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 January 29, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0616, 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 February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9555) (FRL-9956-86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10981) by Spring Trading Company, LLC, on behalf of BASF Corporation, 100 Campus Drive, Florham, NJ 07932. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyethyleneimine (CAS Reg. No. 9002-98-6) when used as an inert ingredient emulsifier, surfactant, adjuvant, dispersant, and/or coating in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the petitioner, which is 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(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. . . .”

    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 ingredient 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 polyethyleneimine including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with polyethyleneimine follows.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information 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.

    In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Polyethyleneimine conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

    1. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur.

    2. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

    3. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

    4. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

    5. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

    6. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).

    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria: Specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e):

    7. The polymer's number average MW of 1,300 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

    Polyethyleneimine conforms to the definition of polymer and meets all of the exclusion criteria in 40 CFR § 723.250, as listed in this section, except that it is cationic. Cationic polymers are excluded from the polymer exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR § 723.250 (in which manufacture and distribution of polymers meeting the exemption criteria can take place without submission of a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) or an exemption notice prior to commencement of manufacture for a commercial purpose) because of their potential to cause aquatic toxicity. The petitioner has submitted aquatic toxicity studies and based on these studies, the Agency does not expect toxicity to nontarget aquatic organisms. Because of its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to polyethyleneimine.

    V. Aggregate Exposure

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that polyethyleneimine could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of polyethyleneimine is 1,300 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since polyethyleneimine conforms to the human health criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

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

    VII. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold 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 data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of polyethyleneimine, based on its conformance to the human health criteria under 40 CFR 723.250, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

    VIII. Determination of Safety

    Taking into consideration all available information on polyethyleneimine with a minimum number average molecular weight of 1,300 amu, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to polyethyleneimine under reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of polyethyleneimine when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest, is safe under FFDCA section 408.

    IX. 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.

    X. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for polyethyleneimine with a number average molecular weight of 1,300 amu (CAS Reg. No. 9002-98-6) when used as an inert ingredient (emulsifier, surfactant, adjuvant, dispersant, and/or coating) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

    XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption 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); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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 exemption 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).

    XII. 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: November 14, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division.

    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 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Polyethyleneimine (CAS Reg. No. 9002-98-6) Minimum number average molecular weight 1,300 amu Emulsifier, surfactant, adjuvant, dispersant and/or coating. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-25715 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 170712657-7999-02] RIN 0648-BG85 International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Restrictions on Fishing for Sharks in the Eastern Pacific Ocean AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is issuing regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act to implement Resolution C-16-05 (Resolution on the Management of Shark Species) of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) adopted in July 2016. Per the Resolution, these regulations require purse seine vessel owners, operators, and crew to follow specified release requirements for sharks in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO). These regulations also prohibit longline vessels targeting tuna or swordfish in the EPO from using “shark lines” (a type of fishing gear used on longline vessels to target sharks). This rule is necessary for the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the IATTC.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective January 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2017-0068, or by contacting the Regional Administrator, Barry A. Thom, NMFS West Coast Region, 1201 NE. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274, or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Studt, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4073.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 7, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 36724) to implement provisions of Resolution C-16-05 adopted by the IATTC in July 2016. The 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule closed on September 6, 2017, and one comment was received from an individual in support of the proposed rule as drafted. NMFS is finalizing the rule as proposed, except for non-substantive revisions as described below. The preamble to the proposed rule contains additional background information, including information on the IATTC, the international obligations of the United States as an IATTC member, and the need for regulations.

    This final rule is implemented under the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), as amended on November 5, 2015, by title II of Public Law 114-81. The recent amendments direct the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, and, with respect to enforcement measures, the U.S. Coast Guard, to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the United States' obligations under the Antigua Convention, including recommendations and decisions adopted by the IATTC. The authority of the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate such regulations has been delegated to NMFS. This rule implements provisions of Resolutions C-16-05 for U.S. commercial fishing vessels that fish for tuna or tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area. The IATTC Convention Area is defined as waters of the EPO within the area bounded by the west coast of the Americas and by 50° N. latitude, 150° W. longitude, and 50° S. latitude.

    This final rule requires that the crew, operator, and owner of a U.S. commercial purse seine fishing vessel promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, any shark (whether live or dead) caught in the IATTC Convention Area, as soon as it is seen in the net or on the deck, without compromising the safety of any persons. If a shark is live when caught, the crew, operator, or owner of a U.S. commercial purse seine vessel must follow the release procedures described in the regulatory text at 50 CFR 300.27(k).

    This rule also prohibits the towing of a whale shark (Rhincondon typus) out of a purse seine net (e.g., using towing ropes).

    Furthermore, this rule prohibits longline vessels targeting tuna or swordfish in the IATTC Convention Area from using “shark lines.”

    Lastly, this final rule updates paragraph references in 50 CFR 300.24 for consistency and accuracy with existing regulations.

    Public Comment and Response

    NMFS received one written comment from an individual during the 30-day public comment period that closed on September 6, 2017. The individual supported the proposed rulemaking and noted shark populations' vulnerability to threats.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    There are no changes to the regulatory text in the final rule from the proposed rule except that 50 CFR 300.27(b) has been revised by removing the phrase in parentheticals, “other than silky shark, oceanic whitetip shark, and whale shark, which may not be retained for consumption”. NMFS removed this parenthetical language from the regulatory text of the final rule because it was unnecessary: Oceanic whitetip, silky or whale sharks are already required to be released as soon as possible; as a result, those three types of shark may never be retained even for the purpose of consumption. Also, for consistency with other definitions in 50 CFR 300.21, a colon was removed from the shark line definition in the proposed rule. Furthermore, paragraph 50 CFR 300.24(ii) was removed by a final rule on September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45514); therefore, paragraph additions of 50 CFR 300.24(jj) and (kk) have been updated to 50 CFR 300.24(ii) and (jj), respectively.

    Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator, in consultation with the Department of State and the U.S. Coast Guard, has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act and other applicable laws.

    Executive Order 12866

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Order 13771

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act Collection of Information

    There are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and existing collection-of-information requirements still apply under the following Control Numbers: 0648-0148, 0648-0214, and 0648-0593. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not required and none was prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300

    Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, International organizations, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS Subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries 1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart C, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.

    2. In § 300.21, add a definition for “Shark line” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 300.21 Definitions.

    Shark line means a type of fishing gear used to target sharks and consisting of an individual hooked line or hooked lines attached to the floatline or directly to the floats of longline gear and deployed in the water column at depths shallower than the mainline.

    3. In § 300.24, revise paragraphs (w), (x), (cc), and (dd), and add paragraphs (ii) and (jj) to read as follows:
    § 300.24 Prohibitions.

    (w) Set or attempt to set a purse seine on or around a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) in contravention of § 300.27(g).

    (x) Fail to release a whale shark encircled in a purse seine net of a fishing vessel as required in § 300.27(h).

    (cc) To retain on board, transship, store, land, sell, or offer for sale any part or whole carcass of a mobulid ray, as described in § 300.27(i).

    (dd) Fail to handle or release a mobulid ray as required in § 300.27(j).

    (ii) Fail to handle or release a shark as required in § 300.27(k).

    (jj) Use a shark line in contravention of § 300.27(l).

    4. In § 300.27, revise paragraphs (b) and (h), and add paragraphs (k) and (l) to read as follows:
    § 300.27 Incidental catch and tuna retention requirements.

    (b) Release requirements for non-tuna species on purse seine vessels. All purse seine vessels must release all billfish, ray (not including mobulid rays, which are subject to paragraph (i) of this section), dorado (Coryphaena hippurus), and other non-tuna fish species, except those being retained for consumption aboard the vessel, as soon as practicable after being identified on board the vessel during the brailing operation. Sharks caught in the IATTC Convention Area and that are not retained for consumption aboard the vessel must be released according to the requirements in paragraph (k) of this section.

    (h) Whale shark release. The crew, operator, and owner of a fishing vessel of the United States commercially fishing for tuna in the Convention Area must release as soon as possible, any whale shark that is encircled in a purse seine net, and must ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure its safe release. No whale shark may be towed out of a purse seine net (e.g., using towing ropes).

    (k) Shark handling and release requirements for purse seine vessels. The crew, operator, and owner of a U.S. commercial purse seine fishing vessel must promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, any shark (whether live or dead) caught in the IATTC Convention Area, as soon as it is seen in the net or on the deck, without compromising the safety of any persons. If a shark is live when caught, the crew, operator, or owner must follow release procedures in the following two paragraphs.

    (1) Sharks must be released out of the purse seine net by directly releasing the shark from the brailer into the ocean. Sharks that cannot be released without compromising the safety of persons or the sharks before being landed on deck must be returned to the water as soon as possible, either utilizing a ramp from the deck connecting to an opening on the side of the boat, or through escape hatches. If ramps or escape hatches are not available, the sharks must be lowered with a sling or cargo net, using a crane or similar equipment, if available.

    (2) No shark may be gaffed or hooked, lifted by the head, tail, gill slits or spiracles, or lifted by using bind wire against or inserted through the body, and no holes may be punched through the bodies of sharks (e.g., to pass a cable through for lifting the shark).

    (l) Shark line prohibition for longline vessels. Any U.S. longline vessel used to fish for tuna or swordfish is prohibited from using any shark line in the IATTC Convention Area.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25617 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 170803719-7719-01] RIN 0648-XF848 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Re-Opening of the Recreational Sector for Red Snapper AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; re-opening.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the re-opening of the recreational sector for red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic through this temporary rule. The most recent preliminary recreational harvest information for red snapper indicate the recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for the limited 2017 fishing season has not yet been reached. Therefore, NMFS re-opens the recreational sector for red snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ for 3 days (see DATES) to allow the recreational ACL to be caught, while minimizing the risk of the recreational ACL being exceeded.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, December 8, 2017, and closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on December 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On November 2, 2017, NMFS published a temporary rule through emergency action for South Atlantic red snapper in the 2017 fishing year (82 FR 50839). The temporary rule authorized the limited harvest and possession of red snapper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ in the 2017 fishing year. The 2017 commercial ACL was set at 124,815 lb (56,615 kg), round weight, and the 2017 recreational ACL was set at 29,656 fish. The recreational season was open for two consecutive weekends made up of Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. The recreational season opened for the weekends of November 3 through 5, 2017, and November 10 through 12, 2017. The temporary rule additionally set a 1 fish per person recreational bag limit. No size limits were implemented for either sector through the temporary rule in an effort to decrease regulatory discards. The temporary rule also set a daily commercial trip limit 75 lb (34 kg), gutted weight. The intended effect of the temporary rule through emergency action is to reduce, to the extent practicable, existing adverse socio-economic impacts to fishermen and fishing communities that utilize the red snapper portion of the snapper-grouper fishery, without allowing overfishing or preventing the stock from rebuilding. Additionally, limited commercial and recreational harvest of red snapper in 2017 provides an opportunity to collect fishery-dependent data that will be useful for future red snapper stock assessments and management decisions.

    During the limited harvest season in 2017, the South Atlantic states and NMFS collected harvest information through fishing effort and dockside surveys, survey of private anglers and charter and headboat captains, and voluntary donations of fish carcasses from recreational anglers. NMFS notes that the majority of recreational harvest of red snapper occurs off Florida and the majority of the sector landings are attributable to private anglers.

    NMFS is required to close the recreational sector for red snapper when the recreational ACL specified at 50 CFR 622.193(aa)(2) is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS previously projected and announced in the Federal Register that the recreational ACL for South Atlantic red snapper for the 2017 limited fishing season would be reached by the end of the second recreational open weekend at 12:01 a.m., local time, on November 13, 2017 (82 FR 50839, November 2, 2017). However, preliminary recreational harvest information indicates that the recreational ACL for red snapper was not met as of that date. Based on these preliminary data, NMFS has projected that the recreational sector may reopen for additional 3 days, which is not expected to result in harvest exceeding the 2017 recreational sector ACL.

    Therefore, in accordance with 50 CFR 622.8(c), NMFS temporarily re-opens the recreational sector for 3 days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) beginning at 12:01 a.m., local time, December 8, 2017, to allow the recreational sector to have the opportunity to harvest the red snapper ACL. The recreational sector will close 3 days later, at 12:01 a.m., local time, December 11, 2017, and will remain closed in accordance with the effectiveness of the implemented emergency measures (82 FR 50839, November 2, 2017). NMFS has determined that this re-opening will allow for an additional opportunity to recreationally harvest red snapper while minimizing the risk of exceeding the recreational ACL. NMFS notes that the commercial harvest of red snapper that was authorized through the temporary rule implementing emergency measures is currently open through December 31, 2017, unless the commercial ACL is projected to be reached prior to that date.

    Once the recreational sector closes, the bag and possession limits are zero for red snapper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ. Additionally, these bag and possession limits apply to the harvest of red snapper in both state and Federal waters in the South Atlantic on board a vessel with a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper.

    Classification

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

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to temporarily re-open the recreational sector for red snapper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the conditions and justification for temporary rule implementing the recreational ACL in 2017 are still in effect, and all that remains is to notify the public of the re-opening. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to allow recreational fishers to harvest the recreational ACL of red snapper from the EEZ, while minimizing the risk of exceeding the recreational ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would not allow for harvest of the recreational ACL before the end of the fishing season.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25645 Filed 11-22-17; 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-XF835 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 Commonwealth of Virginia 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 Virginia and Rhode Island.

    DATES:

    Effective November 22, 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.

    Virginia is transferring 38 lb (17 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to Rhode Island. This transfer was requested by Virginia to repay landings by a Virginia-permitted vessel that landed in Rhode Island under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2017 are now: Virginia, 1,219,874 lb (553,326 kg); and Rhode Island, 887,960 lb (402,772 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: November 22, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25685 Filed 11-22-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 151130999-6594-02] RIN 0648-XF834 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish 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 Commonwealth of Virginia is transferring a portion of its 2017 commercial bluefish quota to the State of Rhode Island. This quota adjustment is necessary to comply with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised commercial bluefish quotas for Virginia and Rhode Island.

    DATES:

    Effective November 22, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.162 and the initial 2017 allocations were published on March 13, 2017 (82 FR 13402).

    The final rule implementing Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2000 (65 FR 45844), and provided a mechanism for transferring bluefish 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 request approval of a transfer of bluefish commercial quota under § 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii). The Regional Administrator must first approve any such transfer based on the criteria in § 648.162(e).

    Virginia is transferring 338 lb (153 kg) of Atlantic bluefish commercial quota to Rhode Island. This transfer was requested by Virginia to repay landings by a Virginia-permitted vessel that landed in Rhode Island under a safe harbor agreement. Both states have agreed to the transfer and certified that it meets all pertinent requirements. The revised bluefish quotas for calendar year 2017 are now: Virginia, 1,014,435 lb (460,140 kg); and Rhode Island, 731,901 lb (331,985 kg); based on the initial quotas published in the 2016-2018 Atlantic Bluefish 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: November 22, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25697 Filed 11-22-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 227 Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE-2017-BT-STD-0059] RIN 1904-AE11 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards Program Design AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Request for information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is evaluating the potential advantages and disadvantages of additional flexibilities in the U.S. Appliance and Equipment Energy Conservation Standards (ECS) program. Flexibilities could include market-based approaches such as those used to set average efficiency standards, feebate programs, or other approaches that may reduce compliance costs and/or increase consumer choice while preserving or enhancing appliance efficiency. This RFI discusses key issues and requests feedback on the possible design of such a program. DOE additionally requests feedback on possible economic efficiency gains, impacts on consumer and manufacturer costs and on energy savings, and suggestions for a pilot product category and/or phase-in of revisions across the ECS program. DOE also requests feedback on any potential challenges associated with designing and implementing any of these flexible program approaches as well as possible solutions.

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested on or before February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Any comments submitted must identify the RFI for Energy Conservation Standards Program Design, and provide docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0059 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AE11. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0059 in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

    Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number and/or RIN. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0059, including Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0059. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice at http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    For information about how to submit a comment or review other public comments in the docket, send an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Appliance and Equipment Standards Program Staff, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. Email: [email protected]

    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Background B. Background on Market-Based Mechanisms in the Context of Environment Regulation II. Key Issues A. Translation to Energy Conservation Standards B. Scope of Standards C. Normalizing Across Energy Sources D. Distributional Impacts Across Consumers and Manufacturers E. Enforcement F. Potential Challenges G. Potential Pilot Program and Assessment III. Public Participation I. Introduction A. Background

    The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to outline and request feedback on the design, value, and solutions to potential challenges of revising the U.S. Appliance and Equipment Energy Conservation Standards (ECS) program to include additional compliance flexibilities, with the goal of reducing compliance costs, enhancing consumer choice and maintaining or increasing energy savings. Of particular interest are designs that would use market-based policy mechanisms such as averaging, credit trading, or feebates. Market-based policy mechanisms are potentially less burdensome alternatives as they use markets, price, and other economic variables to provide incentives for regulated entities to reduce or eliminate negative environmental externalities in the least cost way. These policy mechanisms recognize that compliance costs may vary significantly across the regulated sector and allows individual parties to choose the most cost effective compliance option.

    An example, discussed further below, of a market-based regulatory program that uses averaging, banking, and trading of credits is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards program for light-duty vehicles. The CAFE standards program specifies a fleet-based average fuel efficiency standard that allows manufacturers to trade credits across vehicle classes and manufacturers. This is only one example of how a regulatory program can include some market-based mechanism allowing for more flexibility in compliance. Other examples of market-based mechanisms used in a number of other U.S. energy and environmental programs include standards to which gasoline refineries were subject during the leaded gasoline phase-down,1 the use of credits, or RINs (Renewable Fuel Identification Numbers) in the U.S. EPA Renewable Fuel Standards program,2 fuel efficiency standards for heavy duty engines and vehicles, various versions of state-level Renewable Portfolio Standard programs, including those allowing for the use of Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs),3 and several power plant emissions control programs including California's Cap and Trade program.4

    1 Newell, R.G., & Rogers, K. (2003). The U.S. experience with the phasedown of lead in gasoline. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 2.

    2https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/overview-renewable-fuel-standard.

    3 Wiser, R., Porter, K., & Grace, R. (2005). Evaluating experience with renewables portfolio standards in the United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 10(2), 237-263.

    4https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm.

    DOE requests feedback on possible revisions to the ECS to adopt some type of market-based approach and/or other program flexibilities. DOE additionally requests feedback on possible impacts on consumer and manufacturer costs, estimated benefits of the program such as energy savings, design and implementation of such a program, and suggestions for a pilot product category and/or phase-in of revisions across ECS. DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its regulations consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

    Economic theory suggests that the introduction of credit trading into a mandatory regulatory program such as ECS would likely improve economic efficiency (see Coase (1960),5 Crocker (1966),6 Dales (1968a, 1968b),7 and Montgomery (1972) 8 ) and subsequent discussions such as Ellerman (2005) 9 ). Credit trading, for example, either within a single manufacturer or between manufacturers, would allow a level of flexibility for compliance, and could thereby reduce compliance costs associated with production, and establish a market mechanism to reveal the “shadow value” 10 of the efficiency standard through the value of credits on the credit trading market. In principle, the same aggregate level of energy savings could be obtained with reduced compliance cost, because manufacturers with a lower marginal cost of providing efficiency improvements could increase the efficiency of the products they sell even more, and sell credits from their over-compliance to manufacturers with a higher marginal cost of providing efficiency, thereby allowing them to produce products with efficiency levels below the standard. This could reduce the overall manufacturer cost associated with producing the same aggregate level of energy savings. Such a program would allow a degree of flexibility that could accommodate increased consumer choice as well. For example, if there is a small market segment of consumers with a very high willingness to pay for a product that, for whatever reason, cannot be produced to meet a given energy conservation standard level, under a mandatory standard they could not obtain this product. However, under a trading, averaging, or other market-based scheme a manufacturer could choose to produce that product by purchasing credits in the credit market. Furthermore, market-based standards further incentivize even the makers of the most efficient appliances to continue to innovate and improve efficiency, gains once the minimum standard is met.11 DOE requests comment on which flexible compliance or market-based program scheme might incentivize the most cost-effective improvements in energy efficiency.

    5 Coase, R.H. (1960). The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44. [republished as Coase, R.H. (2013). The problem of social cost. The journal of Law and Economics, 56(4), 837-877.]

    6 Crocker T.D.W.H. (1966). The structuring of atmospheric pollution control systems. The economics of air pollution: A symposium, New York, W.W. Horton, pg. 61-86.

    7 Dales J.H. (1968a) Land, water, and ownership. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne d'Economique, 1(4), 791-804. Dales, J.H. (1968b). Pollution, property and prices. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

    8 Montgomery, W.D. (1972). Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. Journal of Economic Theory. 5(3), 395-418.

    9 Ellerman, A.D. (2005). A note on tradeable permits. Environmental and Resource Economics, 31(2), 123-131.

    10 Shadow price or shadow value is a term in economics. It refers to the marginal value of a constraint, or the value of relaxing a given constraint by one unit. In the case of a standard with trading, theoretically the price of credits in the credit market would reveal the shadow value of the constraint imposed by the standard.

    11 Note that the voluntary ENERGY STAR program currently provides a separate incentive for increasing efficiency beyond the minimum standards, in a different way than mandatory market-based standards. ENERGY STAR criteria are set above minimum standards to provide a separate incentive to produce products above the minimum.

    Increased flexibility, reduced economic costs, and increased incentives for manufacturers to innovate and improve efficiency across a spectrum of products (i.e., both high efficiency products and products that just meet the standard level) are all possible benefits from introducing average standards and/or market-based approaches, or other compliance flexibilities. These market-based program options will differ from the current DOE compliance structure creating some uncertainty about implementation, interaction with voluntary programs such as ENERGY STAR, certification, and enforcement for both manufacturers and DOE. The scope of a tradable standards program could range from allowing averaging only across each company's appliances within a product category (that is, no trading across product categories or between companies). For example, considering the consumer refrigerator and freezer product category,12 a company could average the energy efficiency of their products across all of the product classes of equipment that they produce or just average across some of the various residential refrigerator products in different product classes that they produce, but different companies would not be able to average their energy efficiencies between companies. Another program design could allow companies to trade credits across product categories and/or between companies. A feebate program could similarly vary in scope but would have different implementation and administrative requirements and costs. As there are many program design possibilities and potential program flexibilities, DOE requests comment on any potential benefits or costs that may arise with the implementation of these types of policy changes and any recommendations for how the program could be successfully implemented.

    12 DOE's current energy efficiency standards for the consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers product category are subdivided into forty-two different product classes most of which have unique energy efficiency standards. 76 FR 57516 (September 15, 2011).

    B. Background on Market-Based Mechanisms in the Context of Environment Regulation

    There are many examples of market-based mechanisms incorporated into environmental regulation. Broadly, prominent examples in the United States include emissions trading systems (ETS, or cap and trade); and performance-based standards with a market-based mechanism or similar allowance for some element of flexibility in compliance. In the case of an ETS, a particular cap, or limit, is placed on the level of emissions. That cap would generally be structured in the form of emissions credits (e.g., a single ton of emissions) allocated to each entity subject to the policy. Several allocation mechanisms are possible, including grandfathering, lottery, or auctioning. There are numerous other examples of ETS policies at the state and federal levels in the United States and across the world.13

    13 E.T.S. China (2016). “Carbon Pricing Watch 2016,” World Bank Group. http://www.ecofys.com/en/publications/carbon-pricing-watch-2016/.

    A successful example of an ETS is EPA's Acid Rain Program, where fossil fuel-fired electric power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide were capped nationwide and power plant owners could either install emissions control technologies to reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions allowing the owner to earn credits for each ton of emissions reduced or the owner could purchase credits to offset their emissions. The Acid Rain Program also included an emissions averaging component for nitrous oxide (NOX) emissions that allowed owners to use company-wide averaging to meet the emissions standard.

    An example of flexible performance standards include the various implementations of vehicle fuel economy standards across the world. Many of these vehicle fuel economy programs incorporate some variation of an average target, allowing flexibility in compliance by enabling manufacturers to sell models that are less efficient than the target as long as they balance it out with sales of models that are more efficient.14 China is one of the exceptions as they set minimum standards that each vehicle model must achieve. In addition, some programs have also incorporated some degree of flexible compliance or coordination in compliance across manufacturers. A program already implemented in the U.S., is the Department of Transportation's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for passenger vehicles. CAFE standards were first enacted by Congress in 1975. Starting in 1978, each vehicle manufacturer was required to meet a fleet-wide, average fuel economy standard: One for passenger cars and another for light trucks. The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the CAFE standards, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)). The two agencies work together, with the California Air Resources Board, to set CAFE and GHG standards for passenger vehicles in part to harmonize their standards to reduce compliance burdens on manufacturers so manufacturers can produce the same vehicle model across the nation. The current CAFE standards cover light-duty passenger vehicles for model years out to 2021 while EPA's GHG standards go out to 2025 (77 FR 62623).

    14 An, F., & Sauer, A. (2004). Comparison of passenger vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards around the world. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 25.

    For all U.S. sales in a given model year, the CAFE standards require each manufacturer's U.S. sales meet a production-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy/emissions target based on vehicle footprint (the vehicle wheelbase times its track width, or the area between its tires). Thus, CAFE is a fleet-based standard, which allows each manufacturer to trade off fuel economy between its own models by altering its product mix (i.e., “internal trading”). The standards are applied fleetwide for a company so that domestically produced vehicles 15 and imported vehicles, are treated the same for compliance purposes.

    15 Vehicles produced with more than 75 percent U.S., Canadian, or post-NAFTA Mexican content.

    Beginning with the standards issued in 2009 for model year 2011 vehicles, the CAFE program allows for trading of credits across manufacturers (74 FR 14195). Manufacturers who fail to meet their fleet-level target may buy credits from manufacturers who achieved greater-than-required fleet-level fuel economy; alternatively, manufacturers failing to meet their fleet-level target may pay a fine. Credits may also be used within a manufacturer's own product mix, trading from passenger cars to light trucks, or from domestic to foreign production. Credits earned by exceeding the fuel economy standard may be banked and used up to five years in the future.

    The CAFE calculation incorporates many different complexities and allowances for vehicle design features (e.g., flex-fuel capability, air conditioning, off-cycling technologies, solar panels, engine start/stop, active aerodynamics, etc.), which may or may not have logical analogs in products covered by ECS. It is important when designing a credit program that there is sufficient heterogeneity in the affected product category to leverage the advantages of a market-based approach. For analysis of the impact and effectiveness of credit trading within CAFE, see, e.g., Leard and McConnell (2015) 16 and Greenstone et al. (2017).17

    16 Leard, B. and V. McConnell (2015). “New Markets for Pollution and Energy Efficiency: Credit Trading under Automobile Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards,” Resources for the Future, RFF DP 15-16.

    17 Greenstone, M. et al. (2017). “The Next Generation of Transportation Policy,” The Hamilton Project, Policy Proposal 2017-02.

    Other passenger vehicle fuel economy standards programs around the world also provide some examples for variations on this concept. For example, Japan follows a similar model to the United States, in that their vehicle standards are mandatory and their fuel economy targets are also based on average vehicle fuel economy, where the target is specific to weight classes. Starting in 2001 the regulation was revised to allow manufacturers to transfer credits across weight classes (see An & Sauer 2004).18

    18 An, F., & Sauer, A. (2004). Comparison of passenger vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards around the world. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 25.

    The European Union (E.U.) program differs significantly from that used in the United States. In the E.U. program the average passenger vehicle fuel economy across the entire industry is to meet a certain target by the compliance date (i.e., there are no manufacturer-specific targets). It is a voluntary standard established through an agreement between manufacturers and the European Commission. Because the target is not specific to each manufacturer, manufacturers can presumably coordinate to enable the entire passenger vehicle fleet to meet the target (An & Sauer 2004).

    Another example of a performance standard incorporating a level of flexibility in compliance is a feebate. Examples include the Swedish program to incentivize power plant operators to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, as well as vehicle fuel economy programs in several countries.19 20 Under a feebate program, an efficiency “pivot-point” is set, below which manufacturers pay a fee and above which manufacturers receive a payment from the regulating body or government entity. The fee or payment is based on the efficiency of products sold relative to the pivot point. So, for example, the highest efficiency products generate higher payments than products also above the pivot point but that are lower efficiency (see for example Gillingham 2013 21 ). Feebates may be easier to administer than tradable standards because tracking of permits is not required and credit market liquidity is not a concern, though other implementation challenges may arise.22

    19 Johnson, K.C. (2006). Feebates: An effective regulatory instrument for cost-constrained environmental policy. Energy policy, 34(18), 3965-3976.

    20 German, J. and Dan Meszler (2010). Best practices for feebate program design and implementation. International Council on Clean Transportation. http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_feebates_may2010.pdf.

    21 Gillingham, K. (2013). The Economics of Fuel Economy Standards versus Feebates. National Energy Policy Institute (NEPI) Working Paper. http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Gillingham-CAFE-Standards-vs-Feebates-Apr-20131.pdf.

    22 For example feebate programs may require tax and subsidy authority and are not guaranteed to be revenue neutral.

    Regardless of the specific program design, the general concept with existing programs is to establish a target level, and allow manufacturers to have the flexibility to meet that target in the least cost way. That flexibility can include a penalty or payment based on if a manufacturer under- or over-performs relative to the target (i.e., feebate), a credit market (e.g., CAFE), or allowing for other forms of collaboration in compliance (e.g., E.U. vehicle standard program). DOE seeks feedback on what type of approach would best serve the ECS program. In the remainder of this document CAFE is used as an example to discuss some of the specific points on which DOE seeks feedback, although DOE is interested in feedback regarding any other potential policy approaches.

    II. Key Issues A. Translation to Energy Conservation Standards

    The markets for consumer products and commercial equipment covered by the ECS program will inform the way a market mechanism or allowance for compliance flexibility could possibly be established for ECS's consumer products and commercial equipment.

    First, the scope of the ECS program covers a broad range of consumer products and commercial equipment. The ECS program currently covers more than 60 types of products, each of which have a number of product classes. For this full scope of products, there are a large number of manufacturers controlling hundreds of brands across a wide range of sectors and industries that may facilitate averaging or trading amongst manufacturers. The EPCA definition of manufacturer applies not only to original equipment manufacturers, but also retailers, distributors, installers, or importers, some of which rebrand products manufactured by other distributors. All of these regulated entities would have to submit sales data on covered models in order to track compliance with such a program. The current program of mandatory energy conservation standards for each model currently requires that manufacturers certify and report to DOE the efficiency level of all covered models. Production or sales data are not collected.

    Careful consideration should be given to the scope of additional program flexibilities, for example the range of product categories across which trading under a tradable standard could occur. One potential approach could be to maintain a single standard level as is currently the case for covered appliances and commercial equipment. The standard level would still be set separately for each product category and each class within that product category. Trading could be allowed within a single product class or across all product classes within a particular product category both for a given manufacturer (they could sell some models exceeding the standard as long as they also have sufficient sales below the standard to offset that difference) and across manufacturers so that those with excess credits could bank them or sell them to those with a deficit for a given year. As is the case for CAFE standards, such a system incentivizes manufacturers already producing efficient models to continue improving efficiency 23 Another potential approach could be requiring both a minimum efficiency level and an average standard above the minimum efficiency level that can be met through a more flexible approach, although that approach may reduce the potential cost savings.24

    23 It should be noted that programs such as ENERGY STAR and product rebates by utilities and other program administrators incentivize efficiency in consumer products and industrial equipment outside of the ECS program. The interaction of additional program flexibilities with other programs such as ENERGY STAR is an important consideration.

    24 Retaining a minimum standard could be one way to comply with the anti-backsliding provision in current law.

    While maintaining the same sets of product classes would likely be desirable in most cases, the introduction of trading could allow a degree of freedom and flexibility that could potentially allow for simplification in other dimensions of the program. For example, some product classes could be consolidated, or volume-based standards, such as are established for refrigerators currently, might be simplified to no longer depend on volume. Product classes were defined in order to ensure preservation of consumer choice and product utility/functionality, effectively mandating a degree of flexibility to the program. If the trading introduced a market-driven allowance for flexibility, some of the mandated features may be redundant, and further simplification might be beneficial. This would have to be carefully assessed.

    B. Scope of Standards

    As discussed above, defining the products across which credit trading would be allowed or a single feebate set must be carefully considered. In the case of a tradable standard, trading could be allowed across product categories using the same type of fuel. For example, a manufacturer could trade credits for room air conditioners with electric clothes dryers, with the common metric being kilowatt hours saved over a product's expected lifetime. Alternatively, trading could be allowed only across product classes for a particular product category (e.g., across all room air conditioner product classes), product classes could be consolidated or eliminated for a single product (e.g., a single standard for all room air conditioners), or trading could be allowed across product categories using similar technologies (room air conditioners and commercial air conditioners, and perhaps consumer refrigerators as well). One of the key program design elements would be ensuring a standardized definition of credits across product classes to the extent trading was allowed across products with differing fuel sources, requiring a normalization of energy savings, though most covered products use electricity. Program administration and compliance costs, potential efficiency gains, credit market liquidity, and potential impacts on competition in product markets are important considerations in setting the scope of the program.

    As a final note, for one product currently covered under the ECS program (central air conditioners), the standard level for this product varies regionally. If this feature were present for a product category included in the scope of trading, trading would have to reflect region-specific product sales as well.

    C. Normalizing Across Energy Sources

    Credit trading across appliances with different fuel sources (e.g., electric versus natural gas dryers) would require normalizing energy metrics across fuel types. CAFE currently does this for alternative fuel vehicles (including those that run on electricity, natural gas, hydrogen and other fuels) by generating energy-equivalent fuel economy values. So for instance a natural gas vehicle that travels 30 miles on 100 cubic feet of natural gas is given a gasoline-fuel-equivalent miles per gallon value by multiplying the natural gas fuel economy by an energy content conversion factor representing the relative energy content of 100 cubic feet of gas and one gallon of gasoline. Appliance fuels could similarly be converted into energy-equivalent values, or trading could be restricted to appliances of the same fuel type. DOE seeks feedback on this point.

    D. Distributional Impacts Across Consumers and Manufacturers

    Incorporating elements of a market-based or flexible approach to the ECS program in order to enable more flexible compliance could have significant benefits for consumer's manufacturers, such as providing manufacturers flexibility to comply with the efficiency target in the least cost way. However, even if overall costs decline, the distribution of costs among regulated firms could change, and some firms might face higher costs than under the current program. Administrative costs for firms may increase while overall compliance costs may be reduced, for instance as a result of reductions in production costs or larger profits from better targeting of consumer preferences. DOE seeks feedback on the potential for distributional asymmetries in costs and benefits that could be relevant. For example, would a credit trading mechanism significantly change administrative costs associated with complying with the ECS? Would these cost changes disproportionately impact some types and sizes of firms relative to others (e.g., would some firms potentially have a compliance advantage, in that they may be better equipped to establish designated personnel to manage participation in the credit market)? How would different approaches to program flexibility impact those costs (e.g., credit trading versus feebates?). What are the likely net gains to consumers and manufacturers of a more flexible approach?

    E. Enforcement

    The establishment of credit trading would require additional data collection and monitoring to set standards and ensure compliance.25 As under the current CAFE program, calculating credit holdings would depend on accurate sales data for every covered model. In cases where standards vary regionally, these data would also need to be broken out by region. These data would be necessary to support accurate and consistent calculations for the determination of appropriate energy conservation standard levels as part of the rulemaking, and would be essential for enabling and monitoring the credit market and ensuring compliance.

    25 For the current ECS program, DOE has published certification, compliance, and enforcement regulations for covered products and equipment in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR part 429. These regulations describe how manufacturers must establish certified ratings based on conducting DOE test procedures on a sample of units of a given basic model and subsequently apply DOE's statistical sampling plans. The regulations also describe how manufacturers must submit certification reports to DOE, and how manufacturers must maintain records underlying the certification. Finally, the regulations describe processes for DOE-initiated testing and enforcing compliance with the certification provisions and the energy and water conservation standards.

    F. Potential Challenges

    For several product markets, particularly for large appliances, the set of manufacturers is relatively small. This level of concentration in the product market, if replicated in the credit market, implies manufacturers may be able to exercise market power (i.e., the market would not be perfectly competitive).26 Competitive credit markets are an important factor in design of programs that include trading. The extent to which market power could be exercised in credit markets, and the potential impact on appliance program outcomes and on consumers, would need to be carefully considered in design of a program. In general, liquid and competitive credit markets would be more likely if trading was allowed across many product categories.27 Approaches that do not involve credit markets, such as a feebate, would not generate the same credit trading concerns. More broadly, the interaction of standards and market power in product markets is an important consideration.28 For a discussion of how market power has the potential to impact a credit market in an emissions trading context see Fowlie, Reguant, and Ryan (2016).29

    26 For a summary of recent work on this topic see: Houde, S. and C.A. Spurlock (2016). “Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances: Old and New Economic Rationales,” Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 5(2).

    27 For discussion in the context of emissions trading markets, see, e.g., Godby, R. (2000). “Market Power and Emissions Trading: Theory and Laboratory Results,” Pacific Economic Review, 5(3):349-363.

    28 See for example Carolyn Fischer, “Imperfect Competition, Consumer Behavior, and the Provision of Fuel Efficiency in Light-Duty Vehicles,” Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 10-60, December 2010.

    29 Fowlie, M., Reguant, M., & Ryan, S.P. (2016). Market-based emissions regulation and industry dynamics. Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 249-302.

    Second, as with the current appliance program, the impact of special provisions on program goals would have to be carefully considered. For example, CAFE standards allow a mpg benefit for flex-fuel vehicles regardless of the actual fuel used by the vehicles.30 The resulting incentive to produce flex-fuel vehicles that do not for the most part actually use alternative fuels results in smaller reductions in petroleum fuel use. This provision is being phased out as a result.

    30 For discussion of the flex-fuel provision and what its use can reveal about manufacturer costs, see, e.g., Anderson, S. and J. Sallee (2011). “Using Loopholes to Reveal the Marginal Cost of Regulation: The Case of Fuel-Economy Standards,” American Economic Review, 101: 1375-1409.

    Third, introduction of efficiency incentives like tradable performance standards or feebates into the ECS program would mean that manufacturers that specialize in more efficient products may experience higher sales, while those that specialize in lower efficiency products may have added costs and lower sales. As noted above, the impact on small firms must be carefully considered.

    G. Potential Pilot Program and Assessment

    DOE requests input on potential scope for a market-based pilot. For example, is there a product or equipment type that would be appropriate for such a pilot? Is there a particular industry with a structure more amenable to a market-based pilot than others? Are any potential policy approaches identified in this RFI more suitable to certain industries or products than others? Could this pilot be successfully applied to an industry voluntary program (e.g., set-top boxes)?

    DOE also requests feedback on how to assess pilot program results. In particular, how could DOE identify the counterfactual or control group for comparison with the existing mandatory ECS program? How could DOE best conduct a retroactive assessment of costs and benefits to manufacturers under the existing ECS program and the market-based pilot? How could DOE identify distributional impacts across manufacturers? How could DOE determine if a broader or narrower scope of trading, if allowed, would have been more beneficial? DOE also requests input on what data it would need to collect to properly assess pilot program results.

    III. Public Participation

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by February 26, 2018, comments and information on matters addressed in this RFI and on other matters relevant to DOE's evaluation of the potential advantages and disadvantages of additional compliance flexibilities in energy conservation standards, such as tradable average standards, feebates or other market-based approaches. DOE requests feedback on program design, possible economic efficiency gains, impacts on consumer and manufacturer costs and on energy savings, and potential challenges associated with designing and implementing such a program, including suggestions for a pilot and/or phase-in of a revised ECS.

    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing new and/or amended energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this RFI should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2017. Daniel R Simmons, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25663 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM16-22-000] Coordination of Protection Systems for Performance During Faults and Specific Training for Personnel Reliability Standards AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 (Coordination of Protection Systems for Performance During Faults) and PER-006-1 (Specific Training for Personnel) submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The purpose of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 is to maintain the coordination of protection systems installed to detect and isolate faults on bulk electric system elements, such that those protection systems operate in the intended sequence during faults. The purpose of proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1 is to ensure that personnel are trained on specific topics essential to reliability to perform or support real-time operations of the bulk electric system. In addition, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop certain modifications to proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1.

    DATES:

    Comments are due January 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    • 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: Juan Villar (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards and Security, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (772) 678-6496, [email protected] Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8502, [email protected]
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 (Coordination of Protection Systems for Performance During Faults) and PER-006-1 (Specific Training for Personnel), which were submitted for approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO).1 As discussed below, however, the Commission also proposes to direct NERC to modify proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 to require an initial protection system coordination study to ensure that applicable entities will perform (or have performed), as a baseline, a study demonstrating proper coordination of its protection systems. We propose to direct NERC to submit the modified Reliability Standard for Commission approval within 12 months following the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824o.

    2. The Commission also proposes to approve the associated violation risk factors, violation severity levels, implementation plans, and effective dates proposed by NERC for Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1. The Commission further proposes to approve the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii) (System Protection Coordination).2

    2 The Commission approved Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii) on May 29, 2015. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 151 FERC ¶ 61,186 (2015).

    3. In addition, the Commission proposes to approve new and revised definitions submitted by NERC for incorporation in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (“NERC Glossary”) for the following terms: (1) “protection system coordination study;” (2) “operational planning analysis;” and (3) “real-time assessment.”

    I. Background A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    4. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.3 Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or by the Commission independently.4 In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to section 215 of the FPA.5

    3Id. 824o(c), (d).

    4Id. 824o(e).

    5North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), order on compliance, 118 FERC ¶ 61,190, order on reh'g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

    B. Order No. 693

    5. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.6 In addition, the Commission directed NERC to develop modifications to Reliability Standard PRC-001-1 that:

    6Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, at PP 1433-1449, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).

    (1) Correct the references for Requirements, and [sic] (2) include a requirement that upon the detection of failures in relays or protection system elements on the Bulk-Power System that threaten reliable operation, relevant transmission operators must be informed promptly, but within a specified period of time that is developed in the Reliability Standards development process, whereas generator operators must also promptly inform their transmission operators; and (3) clarifies that, after being informed of failures in relays or protection system elements that threaten reliability of the Bulk-Power System, transmission operators must carry out corrective control actions, i.e., return a system to a stable state that respects system requirements as soon as possible and no longer than 30 minutes after they receive notice of the failure.7

    7 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1449.

    C. NERC Petition and Proposed Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1

    6. On September 2, 2016, NERC submitted a petition seeking Commission approval of proposed Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1.8 NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards, new and revised NERC Glossary terms, and the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii) satisfy the Commission's criteria in Order No. 672 and are just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.9 NERC explains that the intent of the proposed Reliability Standards and changes to the NERC Glossary are to maintain the coordination of protection systems installed to detect and isolate faults on bulk electric system elements and require registered entities to provide training to their relevant personnel on protection systems and remedial action schemes. NERC asserts that the proposed Reliability Standards are an improvement over currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii) and will ensure that appropriate personnel are trained on protection systems and that protection systems are appropriately studied, coordinated, and monitored.

    8 Proposed Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1 are not attached to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The proposed Reliability Standards are available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM16-22-000 and are posted on the NERC Web site, http://www.nerc.com.

    9 NERC Petition at 10.

    1. Proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1

    7. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1 requires generator operators to use a systematic approach to develop and implement training for dispatch personnel at centrally-located dispatch centers.10 NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1 will also cover plant personnel who are responsible for real-time control of a generator. NERC maintains that it is appropriate to train plant personnel [in] the functionality of protection systems and remedial action schemes. NERC observes that proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1 replaces the phrase “purpose and limitations” used in currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-001-1(ii) with the phrase “operational functionality” to clearly identify the objective of the training.11 NERC also observes that proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1 replaces the phrase “applied in its area” in Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii) with the phrase “that affect the output of the generating facility(ies) it operates” to properly tailor the scope of the required training. NERC notes that proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1 does not specify a periodicity for the required training.

    10Id. at 13.

    11Id. at 15.

    2. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1

    8. NERC asserts that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1:

    provides a clear set of Requirements that obligate entities to (1) implement a process for establishing and coordinating new or revised Protection System settings, and (2) periodically study Protection System settings that could be affected by incremental changes in Fault current to ensure the Protection Systems continue to operate in their intended sequence.12

    12Id. at 26.

    According to NERC, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R1 mandates that each transmission owner, generator owner, and distribution provider establish a process for developing new and revised protection system settings for bulk electric system elements.13

    13Id. at 27.

    9. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R2 mandates that every six years, applicable entities must either: (1) Perform a protection system coordination study to determine whether the protection systems continue to operate in the intended sequence during faults; (2) compare present fault current values to an established fault current baseline and, only if the comparison identifies a 15 percent or greater deviation in fault current values (either three phase or phase to ground) at a bus to which the bulk electric system is connected, perform a protection system coordination study; or (3) use a combination of options 1 and 2.14

    14Id. at 26.

    10. NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R3 will require applicable entities to use the process established under proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R1 for the development of any new or revised protection system settings.

    3. Proposed Retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii)

    11. NERC states that Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii) includes six requirements that are either addressed by Reliability Standards approved by the Commission or by the proposed Reliability Standards. Specifically, NERC explains that Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii), Requirement R1 has been partially replaced by currently-effective Reliability Standards PER-003-1 and PER-005-2. NERC continues that proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1 and the proposed revised definitions of operational planning analysis and real-time assessment will replace the remaining portions of Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii), Requirement R1. NERC asserts that Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii), Requirement R2 has been addressed by Reliability Standards IRO-001-4, IRO-008-2, IRO-010-2, TOP-001-3, and TOP-003-3, which the Commission approved in Order No. 817.15 NERC states that Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii), Requirements R3 and R4 will be replaced with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1. NERC also explains that Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii), Requirement R5 has been replaced with several Reliability Standards developed after Reliability Standard PRC-001-1(ii) became effective.16 NERC further states that Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii), Requirement R6 has been replaced with Reliability Standards TOP-001-3 and TOP-003-3.

    15Id. at 5 (citing Transmission Operations Reliability Standards and Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, Order No. 817, 153 FERC ¶ 61,178 (2015)).

    16Id. at 6.

    II. Discussion

    12. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we propose to approve proposed Reliability Standards PER-006-1 and PRC-027-1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest, as both proposed Reliability Standards improve upon currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii) in important ways.17 Specifically, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 does so by (1) modifying the applicability section to include the appropriate functional entity types with the responsibilities, resources, and skill sets to conduct the studies required to coordinate protection systems, and (2) listing the protection system functions on all bulk electric system elements that require coordination. Proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1, along with existing formal training requirements in the PER group of Reliability Standards, also improves upon Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii), Requirement R1 by ensuring that the necessary personnel are familiar with and understand the purpose and limitations of protection systems schemes while providing more precise and auditable requirements. However, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R2, Option 2 does not appear to ensure coordination of all bulk electric system elements with protection system functions. Accordingly, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, we propose to direct that NERC develop modifications to proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 that address our concern regarding this gap, as discussed below.

    17 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).

    13. In addition, we propose to approve NERC's associated violation risk factors, violation severity levels, implementation plans, and effective dates. We also propose to approve the revised definitions for inclusion in the NERC Glossary. Further, we propose to approve the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii), as requested by NERC.

    14. Pursuant to 215(d)(5) of the FPA, we propose to direct that NERC develop modifications to proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 addressing our concern that applicable entities that choose Requirement R2, Option 2 perform (or have already performed) an initial baseline study demonstrating proper coordination of their protection systems. Any additional protection system coordination studies would be necessary only if an applicable entity is confronted with 15 percent or greater fault current deviations from the prior baseline study amounts, as currently proposed in Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R2, Option 2. We propose to direct NERC to submit the modified Reliability Standard within 12 months following the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding.

    15. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R2 does not require an initial protection system coordination study if an applicable entity elects Option 2. Unlike Option 1, which requires performance of protection system coordination studies every six years, Option 2 requires applicable entities to “[c]ompare present Fault current values to an established Fault current baseline and perform a Protection System Coordination Study when the comparison identifies a 15 percent or greater deviation.” The proposed Reliability Standard and NERC's petition do not indicate that the “Fault current baseline” must be established through an initial protection system coordination study. Instead, NERC's petition states that the baseline must be established “by the effective date of the standard based on short-circuit studies.” 18 The proposed Reliability Standard provides that “the initial Fault current baseline(s) shall be established by the effective date of this Reliability Standard and updated each time a Protection System Coordination Study is performed,” but this language does not require establishing the “initial Fault current baseline” through an initial protection system coordination study.19 NERC's petition reinforces this understanding, as noted above, by explicitly allowing the use of short-circuit studies to establish the initial Fault current baseline.

    18 NERC Petition at 36 n.35.

    19 Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R2, Option 2 n.1. Footnote 1 further states that if an “initial baseline was not established by the effective date of this Reliability Standard because of the previous use of an alternate option or the installation of a new BES Element, the entity may establish the baseline by performing a Protection System Coordination Study” (emphasis added). Id.

    16. While they are related terms, we understand there to be a difference between short-circuit studies and protection system coordination studies. NERC defines protection system coordination study as an “analysis to determine whether Protection Systems operate in the intended sequence during Faults.” 20 By comparison, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 explains that a short-circuit study is “an analysis of an electrical network that determines the magnitude of the currents flowing in the network during an electrical fault . . . [and] are used as the basis for protection device coordination studies.” 21 Therefore, while short-circuit studies are inputs to protection system coordination studies, it appears that a short-circuit study differs in scope from a protection system coordination study. Based on this record, it would be incorrect to conclude that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R2, Options 1 and 2 afford the same level of protection system coordination because the former requires a protection system coordination study while the latter does not.

    20 NERC Petition, Exhibit A-3, Proposed Definitions. This definition is consistent with the definition of coordination of protection in IEEE Std. C37.113-1999 (stating that the “process of choosing settings or time delay characteristics of protective devices, such that operation of the devices will occur in a specified order to minimize customer service interruption and power system isolation due to a power system disturbance”).

    21 Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Supplemental Material at 8.

    17. While we generally support permitting flexibility in the Reliability Standards to achieve required performance goals, the possibility that some bulk electric system elements may never undergo a protection system coordination study raises reliability concerns. In past serious Bulk-Power System events, mis-coordination was a contributing factor to misoperations and outages. For example, the Arizona Southern California September 8, 2011 Outage Report identified an instance where a transmission owner did not perform a protection system coordination study prior to the implementation of a protection system.22 The 2011 Outage Report stated that this omission negatively affected the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System during the 2011 event.23

    22 Arizona Southern California September 8, 2011 Outage Report at 101-103, https://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/04-27-2012-ferc-nerc-report.pdf.

    23Id. at 100-102.

    18. Over the past eleven years, several NERC reports have addressed the importance of protection system coordination to Bulk-Power System reliability. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 addresses some of the issues raised in these reports; but without requiring an initial protection system coordination study, the proposed Reliability Standard does not address all of them. In 2006, for example, the NERC System Protection Control Task Force assessed Reliability Standard PRC-001.24 The report recommended requiring the coordination of all existing protection systems.25

    24 NERC SPCTF Assessment of Standard PRC-001-0—System Protection Coordination (2006), http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project200706SystemProtectionCoordinationDL/NERC_SPCTF_Assessment_of_Standard_PRC.pdf.

    25Id. at 3-4.

    19. In 2009, in a letter from the NERC President to the NERC Board of Trustees and stakeholders, NERC identified generation and transmission mis-coordination as responsible for 30 percent of the misoperations that occurred between 2005 and 2008.26 The 2009 letter stated that mis-coordination between generation and transmission protection systems “has caused two significant system disturbances in the past two years, and resulted in the unnecessary loss of generation during seven additional disturbances in that timeframe.” 27 The letter explained that the 2009 NERC System Protection Initiative would initially focus on the area of protection system coordination.28

    26 NERC Letter from Rick Sergel, NERC President, Regarding System Protection Initiative at Figure 2 (April 24, 2009).

    27Id. at 1.

    28Id. at 1-2.

    20. In 2013, NERC issued a Misoperations Report prepared by the Protection System Misoperations Task Force.29 The Misoperations Report identified “ways to potentially reduce the amount of future misoperations” and concluded that “[m]isoperations due to setting errors can potentially be reduced.” 30 The identified techniques to reduce incorrect settings, included: Peer reviews, increased training, more extensive fault studies, standard templates for setting standard schemes using complex relays, and periodic review of existing settings when there is a change in system topography.31 In the ReliabilityFirst region, NERC identified a category of misoperations caused by “Engineering/Design Issues,” which specifically included setting mis-coordination.32 This category of misoperations was one of the three most common causes of misoperations for above 200 kV facilities within the ReliabilityFirst region.33 The positive impact on Bulk-Power System reliability of reducing misoperations because of “Incorrect setting/logic/design errors” is found in NERC's 2015 Analysis of System Protection Misoperations:

    29 NERC Misoperations Report (2013), http://www.nerc.com/comm/PC/Protection%20System%20Misoperations%20Task%20Force%20PSMTF%202/PSMTF_Report.pdf.

    30Id. at 3.

    31Id.

    32Id. at 14-15. The 2013 Misoperations Report elaborated that the “Engineering/Design Issues” category included:

    Incorrect short circuit values and coordination errors. The incorrect short circuit values included outdated or incorrect data used to calculate relay settings. The coordination errors in these cases all involved pilot protection either of insufficient carrier blocking trip delays or of improper choice of ground pickup values used in a blocking scheme. Id. at 15.

    33Id. at 14.

    The State of Reliability 2015 report found that protection system misoperations continued to be a significant contributor to automatic transmission outage severity. In general, transmission system events with protection system misoperations were more impactful than other transmission events. They were also a significant contributor to transmission outage severity, indicating that a reduction in protection system misoperations would lead to an improvement in system reliability.34

    34 NERC, Analysis of System Protection Misoperations at 1 (Dec. 2015) (citations omitted), http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/PA/Performance%20Analysis%20DL/2015_Analysis_of_System_Protection_Misoperations_Final.pdf (finding that 31 percent of all misoperations were due to “Incorrect setting/logic/design errors”).

    21. In 2014, a NERC “lessons learned” document on “Generation Relaying—Underfrequency Protection Coordination” identified a 2014 incident where underfrequency relay trip settings were installed on the system unnecessarily and were not coordinated with a generator's relay trip setting.35 The document explained that “[u]nintended generator tripping during an underfrequency event can exacerbate the condition.” 36 The document also stated that “generator relay protection should be coordinated with all auxiliary power system relaying with specific regard to time-delay settings” in order to ensure reliable generator operation.37

    35 NERC, Lesson Learned, Generation Relaying—Underfrequency Protection Coordination (2014), http://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/ea/Lessons%20Learned%20Document%20Library/LL20140601_Generation_Relaying_Underfrequency_Protection_Coordination_final.pdf.

    36Id.

    37Id.

    22. The 2016 State of Reliability Report noted that while protection system misoperations declined in 2015, misoperations showed a “statistically significant positive correlation with transmission outage severity and show[ed] a higher relative transmission risk.” 38 Misoperations showed the strongest correlation of the factors considered. In addition, the 2016 State of Reliability Report identified that “over 40 percent of the incorrect setting/logic/design misoperations were due to the miss coordination [sic] of ground overcurrent settings” found by ERCOT.39

    38 2016 State of Reliability Report at 17, http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/Pages/default.aspx.

    39Id. at 166.

    23. The 2017 State of Reliability Report recognized the significance of protection system misoperations to Bulk-Power System reliability by observing that “[p]rotection system misoperations should remain an area of focus as it continues to be one of the largest contributors to the severity of transmission outages.” 40

    40 2017 State of Reliability Report at 2.

    24. For the reasons discussed above, we propose to direct that NERC develop modifications to proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 to address our concern by requiring that applicable entities perform an initial protection coordination study under Requirement R2, Option 2. We propose that applicable entities would have six years from the effective date of a modified Reliability Standard to complete the analysis. An applicable entity could use pre-existing protection system coordination studies to satisfy the proposed requirement provided it was reasonable (i.e., no intervening system changes that would render the earlier work obsolete). After conducting the initial protection system coordination study, subsequent protection system coordination studies would only be required when an applicable entity is confronted with 15 percent or greater fault current deviations from the prior baseline study amounts, as currently proposed in Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R2, Option 2. We seek comments on this proposal.

    25. Separately, we seek comment from NERC and other interested entities explaining the technical basis for employing a 15 percent deviation threshold in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1, Requirement R2, Option 2. We seek to better understand the basis for this threshold to ensure an adequate record in the proceeding on this matter.

    III. Information Collection Statement

    26. The collection of information addressed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.41 OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.42 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

    41 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

    42 5 CFR 1320.11.

    27. The Commission will submit the information collection requirement to OMB for its final review and approval. We solicit public comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques.

    28. The information collection requirements in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket No. RM16-22-000 are associated with FERC-725A,43 FERC-725G6,44 and FERC-725Y, as discussed below.

    43 FERC-725A (OMB Control No. 1902-0244) currently includes the information collection requirements associated with Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii), which is proposed for retirement. Only one item per OMB Control No. may be pending OMB review at a time, and an unrelated item affecting FERC-725A is pending OMB review. We are providing estimates of the burden reduction related to FERC-725A for review and comment. However, to submit this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking timely to OMB, the Commission is being conservative and not reducing the burden estimates associated with FERC-725A at this time.

    44 The information collection requirements related to proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 would normally be included in FERC-725G (OMB Control No. 1902-0252). However, only one item per OMB Control No. may be pending OMB review at a time, and an unrelated item affecting FERC-725G is pending OMB review. For this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the related submittal to OMB, we use a placeholder information collection no. of FERC-725G6.

    29. Public Reporting Burden: The number of respondents below is based on an examination of the NERC compliance registry on April 7, 2017, for transmission owners, generator owners, generator operators, and distribution providers within the United States and an estimate of how many entities from that registry will be affected by the Reliability Standards proposed for adoption and implementation. At the time of Commission review of proposed Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1, 334 transmission owners, 913 generator owners, 875 generator operators, and 365 distribution providers in the United States were registered in the NERC compliance registry. However, under NERC's compliance registration program, entities may be registered for multiple functions, so these numbers incorporate some double counting. We note that many generation sites share a common generator owner or generator operator. The following table provides the estimated proposed annual burden and cost related to information collection requirements in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.45

    45 TO = transmission owner; TOP = transmission operator; GO = generator owner; GOP = generator operator; DP = distribution provider; and BA = balancing authority.

    Proposed Changes in the NOPR in Docket No. RM16-22-000 Respondent category and requirement 46 Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of annual
  • responses
  • Average burden hours and
  • cost per response 47
  • Annual burden hours
  • and total annual cost
  • (rounded) 48
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) FERC-725G6 (Covering Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1) 49 TO; Reporting Reqs. R1, R2, & R3 334 1 334 60 hrs.; $3,941.40 20,040 hrs.; $1,316,428. TO; Recordkeeping Reqs. 334 1 334 40 hrs.; $1,565.60 13,360 hrs.; $522,910. GO; Reporting Reqs. R1, R2, & R3 913 1 913 10 hrs.; $656.90 9,130 hrs.; $599,750. GO; Recordkeeping Reqs. 913 1 913 10 hrs.; $391.40 9,130 hrs.; $357,348. DP; Reporting Reqs R1, R2, & R3 365 1 365 10 hrs.; $656.90 3,650 hrs.; $239,769. DP; Recordkeeping Reqs. 365 1 365 10 hrs.; $391.40 3,650 hrs.; $142,861. Sub-Total for Reporting Reqs. for FERC-725G6 32,820 hrs.; $2,155,947. Sub-Total for Recordkeeping Reqs. for FERC-725G6 26,140 hrs.; $1,023,119. Total Proposed Increase for FERC-725G6 58,960 hrs.; $3,179,066. FERC-725Y (Covering Proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1) GOP; Reporting Req. R1 875 1 875 5 hrs.; $328.45 4,375 hrs.; $287,394. GOP; Recordkeeping Req. 875 1 875 10 hrs.; $391.40 8,750 hrs.; $342,475. Total Proposed Increase for FERC-725Y 13,125 hrs.; $629,869. Reductions to FERC-725A (Covering Proposed Retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1) 50 GOP; Reporting Req. 875 1 875 40 hrs.; $2,627.60 35,000 hrs.; $2,299,150. GOP; Recordkeeping Req. 875 1 875 50 hrs.; $1,957.00 43,750 hrs.; $1,712,375. TOP; Reporting Req. 177 1 177 60 hrs.; $3,941.40 10,620 hrs.; $697,628. TOP; Recordkeeping Req. 177 1 177 70 hrs.; $2,739.80 12,390 hrs.; $484,945. BA; Reporting Req. 99 1 99 32 hrs.; $2,102.08 3,168 hrs.; $208,106. BA; Recordkeeping Req. 99 1 99 20 hrs.; $782.80 1,980 hrs.; $77,497. Reduction Sub-Total Reporting Reqs. for FERC-725A 48,788 hrs.; $3,204,884. Reduction Sub-Total Recordkeeping Reqs. for FERC-725A 58,120 hrs.; $2,274,817. Reduction, Sub-Total for FERC-725A 106,908 hrs.; $5,479,701 (reduction). NET TOTAL REDUCTION FOR PROPOSED CHANGES IN NOPR IN RM16-22-000 34,823 hrs.; $1,670,766 (reduction).

    Titles: FERC-725G6 (Mandatory Reliability Standard PRC-027-1) and FERC-725Y (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Operations Personnel Training (PER-005-2 and PER-006-1).

    46 For each Reliability Standard, the Measure shows the acceptable evidence for the associated Reporting Requirement, and the Compliance section details the related Recordkeeping Requirement.

    47 Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly cost (wages plus benefits) is $65.69/hour for an engineer, and $39.14/hour for a record clerk. The hourly cost for an engineer is used for reporting requirements; the hourly cost for a record clerk is used for recordkeeping requirements.

    48 For display purposes, the cost figures in column 5 have been rounded.

    49 Some of the reporting requirements are required at least every six calendar years. In this table, the Commission assumes that respondents might work on some of their elements each year; the annual burden estimate shown is one sixth of the burden associated with one complete six-year cycle. For example, for each transmission owner: (a) the annual reporting burden associated with Requirements R1, R2, and R3 is shown as 60 hours per year, and (b) the burden for the six-year cycle would be six times that, or a total of 360 hours.

    50 The estimates for average annual burden hours per response are based on Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at PP 1906, 1907. The numbers of respondents and estimated hourly costs are based on current figures.

    Action: Revision to existing collections and proposed new information collection.

    OMB Control Nos.: To be determined (FERC-725G6) 51 and 1902-0279 (FERC-725Y).

    51 OMB will assign a Control No. when it issues a decision.

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

    Frequency of Responses: Annual recordkeeping and reporting requirements, with some reporting requirements being at least once every six years.

    Necessity of the Information: Proposed Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1 set forth requirements for coordination of protection systems and personnel training on specific topics essential to reliability. The Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1, which will replace Commission-approved Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii). The proposed Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1 improve upon the existing Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii) because the proposed Reliability Standards assign responsibilities to entities with more appropriate resources and skill sets to conduct studies required to coordinate protection systems. The proposed Reliability Standards also provide additional clarity to the applicable entities.

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

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

    31. Comments concerning the information collection proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the associated burden estimates should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address: [email protected] Please refer to OMB Control Nos. to be determined (FERC-725G6) and 1902-0279 (FERC-725Y) in your submittal.

    IV. Environmental Analysis

    32. 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.52 The action proposed here falls within the categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.53

    52Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ¶ 61,284).

    53 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    33. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.54 The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines which utilities are small businesses based on the number of employees that a utility and its affiliates employ.55

    54 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

    55 13 CFR 121.201, Subsector 221.

    34. The proposed Reliability Standard PRC-027-1 (included in FERC-725G6) will apply to approximately 1,612 entities (334 transmission owners, 913 generator owners, and 365 distribution providers) in the United States.56 Pursuant to SBA regulations, the employment threshold for transmission is 500 employees, for generator owners is between 250 and 750 employees (depending on the fuel source), and for distribution providers is 1,000 employees. We estimate that the annual cost for each entity will be $1,048 for each generator owner and distribution provider and $5,507 for each transmission owner.

    56 Many respondents serve multiple roles in the NERC compliance registry, so there is likely double counting in the estimates.

    35. The proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1 (included in FERC-725Y) will apply to approximately 875 generator operators in the United States. Pursuant to SBA regulations the employment threshold for generator operators is between 250 and 750 employees (depending on the fuel source). We estimate that the annual cost for each generator operator will be $719.

    36. In addition, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1(ii) (included in FERC-725A). That retirement would decrease the annual estimated cost for 875 generator operators by $4,585 each, for 177 transmission operators by $6,681 each, and for 99 balancing authorities by $2,885 each. For the generator operators affected by this retirement and the proposed Reliability Standard PER-006-1, the net annual effect would be a decrease of $3,866 each. We estimate the net annual cost of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would vary, by type of entity, from an annual decrease of $6,681 (for each transmission operator) to an annual increase of $5,507 (for each transmission owner). We view this as a minimal economic impact for each entity. Accordingly, we certify that the proposed Reliability Standards PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1 and retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-001-1.1 (ii) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    VI. Comment Procedures

    37. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due January 29, 2018. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16-22-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

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

    39. 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.

    40. 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.

    VII. Document Availability

    41. 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.

    42. 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 of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.

    43. 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]

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued November 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25586 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Chapter II Report on Potential Actions To Reduce Regulatory Burdens on Domestic Energy Production AGENCY:

    Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has issued a report that examined actions it could take to modify existing regulations that potentially burden the development and use of domestically produced energy resources, such as oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy, as well as renewable energy. The report was required by Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. The report identifies changes that could be made to several nationwide permits that authorize activities under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 the Clean Water Act that are associated with domestic energy production and use.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO-R, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Olson at 202-761-4922 or access the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Home Page at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Executive Order (E.O.) 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2017 (82 FR 16093). That E.O. requires federal agencies to immediately review existing regulations that may burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. Section 2 of E.O. 13783 requires federal agencies to prepare and issue reports with specific recommendations to change their regulations that could reduce or eliminate burdens to domestic energy production.

    On October 25, 2017, the Corps issued a report recommending changes to nine nationwide permits to reduce burdens on domestic energy producers. The report is available at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/nwp/NWP_13783_25sept2017_castle.pdf?ver=2017-10-25-092532-813.

    The Corps issues nationwide permits to authorize certain categories of activities that require Department of the Army permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Nationwide permits are general permits that authorize activities across the country that result in no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. Nationwide permits can be issued for a period of 5 years, and the current nationwide permits were issued on December 21, 2016. Those nationwide permits were published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2017 (82 FR 1860) and went into effect on March 19, 2017. Those nationwide permits expire on March 18, 2022. There are 52 nationwide permits, and the report identifies 12 nationwide permits that authorize activities associated with domestic energy production and use. The report suggests modifications to nine of those nationwide permits to reduce burdens on domestic energy producers.

    The nine nationwide permits (NWPs) recommended for changes include: NWP 3, Maintenance; NWP 12, Utility Line Activities; NWP 17, Hydropower Projects; NWP 21, Surface Coal Mining Activities; NWP 39, Commercial and Institutional Developments; NWP 49, Coal Remining Activities; NWP 50, Underground Coal Mining Activities; NWP 51, Land-Based Renewable Energy Generation Projects; and NWP 52, Water-Based Renewable Energy Generation Pilot Projects.

    The Corps will coordinate with the administration to determine if the recommended changes in the report will be pursued. Any modifications to the nine nationwide permits identified in the report would require rulemaking to change those nationwide permits. That rulemaking process requires publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register to solicit comments on the proposed changes to the nationwide permits, evaluating the comments received, and issuing a final rule to modify those nationwide permits. Modification of those nationwide permits will also require, as applicable, water quality certifications under section 401 of the Clean Water Act and consistency determinations under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Thomas P. Smith, Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division, Directorate of Civil Works.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25554 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 96 [GN Docket No. 17-258; FCC 17-134] Promoting Investment in the 3500-3700 MHz Band AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes and seeks comment on reforms of its licensing rules governing Priority Access Licenses (PALs) in the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). Specifically, the Commission proposes extending PAL license terms from three years to 10 years, with the possibility for renewal; seeks comment on increasing the PAL geographic licensing area; proposes to allow portioning and disaggregation of PALs on the secondary market; and proposes to amend the rules governing assignment of PALs. The Commission also proposes to remove a rule requiring public disclosure of device registration information, and seeks comment on changes to the technical rules to allow operation over wider bandwidths.

    DATES:

    Interested parties may file comments on or before December 28, 2017, and reply comments on or before January 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 17-258, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Generally, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Commenters are only required to file copies in GN Docket No. 13-111.

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

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

    • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

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

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Greffenius, [email protected], of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-2896.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in GN Docket No. 17-258, FCC 17-134, released on October 24, 2017. The complete text of the NPRM is available for viewing via the Commission's ECFS Web site by entering the docket number, GN Docket No. 17-258. The complete text of the NPRM is also available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563.

    Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules (47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.). Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. We find that all ex parte presentations made by NTIA or Department of Defense representatives are exempt under our exemption for presentations by federal agencies sharing jurisdiction with the Commission (see 47 CFR 1.1204(a)(5)).

    Synopsis I. Introduction and Background

    In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 17-258 (NPRM), the Commission seeks comment on several proposed changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses (PALs) that will be issued in 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band)—including longer license terms, renewability, larger geographic license areas, and auction methodology. These changes are consistent with the service rules and license assignment models that helped foster the development of 4G and LTE services in the United States. We anticipate that adopting similar rules for the 3.5 GHz Band similarly will encourage robust investment in network deployment. We also seek comment on changes to the technical rules that could facilitate operations over wider bandwidths while ensuring that current and future incumbent operations continue to be protected from interference. In addition, we seek changes to the information security requirements that would help safeguard private information and protect critical infrastructure.

    In 2015, the Commission adopted rules for commercial use of 150 megahertz in the 3.5 GHz Band. Specifically, the First Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-354, adopted April 15, 2015 and released April 21, 2015 (FCC 15-47), created a three-tiered framework to coordinate shared federal and non-federal use of the band. Incumbents comprise the highest tier and receive protection from all other users, followed by PAL, the second tier, and General Authorized Access (GAA), the third tier. PALs receive protection from GAA operations; GAA is licensed-by-rule and must accept interference from all other users. Automated frequency coordinators, known as Spectrum Access Systems (SASs), will coordinate operations between and among users in different access tiers. The service and technical rules governing the 3.5 GHz Band were adopted as the new Part 96 of the Commission's rules.

    In June 2017, both CTIA and T-Mobile (together, Petitioners) filed petitions for rulemaking, which ask the Commission to reexamine several of the PAL licensing rules. CTIA proposes several changes to the PAL licensing rules; T-Mobile supports CTIA's proposals and makes additional proposals, including proposed changes to the amount of spectrum available for PALs and to the technical rules governing the 3.5 GHz Band. Petitioners argue that these changes are necessary to promote 5G network deployment in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.

    The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology sought comment on the Petitions—and on related issues raised in ex parte communications—on June 22, 2017 (DA 17-609), and received comments and reply comments from more than 120 parties.

    II. NPRM A. PAL Licensing Rules 1. License Term and Renewability

    The rules adopted in the First Report and Order established a three-year license term for PALs. Under the current rules, at the end of its term, a PAL will terminate automatically and may not be renewed. During the first application window, however, an applicant may apply for up to two consecutive three-year terms for a given PAL. During subsequent regular application windows, only the next three-year license term will be made available for any given PAL.

    Petitioners ask the Commission to increase the PAL license term to ten years, and to include an expectation of renewal. Petitioners and some commenters argue that a longer, renewable license term will better encourage investment in the 3.5 GHz Band, stressing that a three-year term with automatic termination creates a risk that Priority Access licensees will face stranded investment in just three (or, initially, six) years. Petitioners and some commenters also disagree with the assumption underlying the current rule—that a user's ability to switch between Priority Access and GAA use will provide sufficient incentives for investment. T-Mobile argues that the current rule does not account for challenges “that providers have reported experiencing in the real world today” that can delay network deployment. For example, CTIA cites difficulties in obtaining siting approvals, which they argue are magnified in this band, given the complexity of rolling out a high number of small cell deployments.

    CTIA and several commenters also note that a ten-year, renewable licensing scheme is consistent with the Commission's “proven approach” in most other licensed mobile bands, including the bands at issue in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding which, like the 3.5 GHz Band, “will see network deployments comprised mostly of small cells.” Others argue that ten-year terms would harmonize the U.S. approach with the global approach to actively encourage 5G network deployment in the mid-band spectrum.

    Other commenters, however, support the existing rules. They argue that that a longer, renewable license—combined with other potential rule changes sought by the Petitioners—would make PALs economically viable investments only for large entities, and would convert the 3.5 GHz Band from an innovative framework into a traditionally licensed band. These commenters also argue that the investments already made in the band based on the current rules belie concerns about barriers to investment and that any changes to the band should permit a diversity of deployment models and use cases and not be solely designed for the benefit of one (i.e., 5G).

    We propose to revise our rules by increasing the PAL license term from three years to ten years and by eliminating the requirement that PALs automatically terminate at the end of the license term. We also seek comment on this change and on the appropriate performance requirements and renewal standards for PALs. This approach is consistent with that adopted for other wireless services and will afford each licensee sufficient time to design and acquire the necessary equipment and devices and to deploy facilities across the license area. We invite detailed comments on this proposal from all stakeholders.

    We seek comment on whether the proposed rule changes will affect investment already made, as well as how they will incentivize future investment, in this band. What specific impact will a longer, renewable license have on investments and business plans already underway? How will the proposal affect investment in the future, particularly given the longer term of ten years and the possibility of renewal? To what extent would a longer license term with the possibility of renewal facilitate the deployment of a wide array of technologies?

    We also seek comment on how a longer, renewable license term for PALs could affect deployments in rural areas. Does the proposed rule change effectively promote the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and services to benefit the public, including those residing in rural areas? Given concerns raised by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) and other commenters about access to spectrum in rural areas, does the proposed rule change appropriately balance the objectives in Section 309(j) (47 U.S.C. 309(j))? Do these arguments present a persuasive case for maintaining the current three-year license term for PALs in rural areas? Further, does extending the license term to ten years lead to barriers to exit for companies that could impede innovation and investment or is the ability to return a license to the Commission sufficient to allay such concerns?

    Additionally, we seek comment on alternative approaches to the length of the license term, including different, hybrid approaches for particular subsets of PALs (e.g., three years for some PALs, five years for some, and ten for yet others). Many of these other approaches are already in the record. For example, Charter proposes a six-year renewable term, Motorola Solutions proposes a five-year term with only a single renewal allowed, and Southern Linc and WISPA suggest that a subset of PALs could have a five-year term, with PALs seeking renewal paying a fee. What other alternative licensing terms and conditions might be appropriate for this band? What impact would these alternatives have on investment, deployment, and on smaller or rural entities seeking PALs? Commenters that submit alternative proposals should include a cost-benefit analysis to support their approach.

    If the license term is increased to ten years with the possibility of renewal, PALs would more closely resemble other licenses issued by the Commission under its auction authority. Such licenses include performance requirements—typically construction requirements—and many services also include renewal standards. Some commenters argue that, if PALs are licensed for a ten-year, renewable term, the Commission should impose construction requirements on Priority Access licensees, as it has for other licensed wireless services. We seek comment on whether, if we adopt longer term, renewable PALs, it would serve the public interest to adopt certain performance requirements to ensure that the spectrum is put to its best use in an efficient and effective manner. If so, what types of performance requirements would be appropriate? Which performance metrics (e.g., population coverage, geographic coverage) and benchmarks would be appropriate? Does the opportunistic GAA use of the band—including unused PAL channels—alleviate concerns involving spectrum warehousing or otherwise satisfy the Commission's statutory obligations? If so, how can we take that into account in determining performance requirements for longer term, renewable PALs?

    In addition, to obtain renewal, a licensee generally must show that it has continued to provide at least the initially-required level of service necessary to satisfy its performance requirement, and that it has substantially complied with the Communications Act and Commission rules. If we adopt the proposed changes to PALs, what standard, if any, would be appropriate for the Commission to apply at the end of the PAL license term to determine whether renewal is warranted? Would such a requirement be appropriate in this band? If so, how should it be applied and what level of service should be used as a renewal standard?

    Some commenters have argued that, instead of renewability, the licenses should be reauctioned at the end of the license term. For example, Paul Milgrom describes an auction format under which an incumbent would be required to bid for a renewal of its license at the end of the license term, but it would be given a bidding credit so that, if it won, it would have to pay only a fraction of the auction-determined price. Moreover, if the incumbent loses, it would be compensated with a transferable bidding credit to apply to the purchase of other outcomes. Milgrom argues that this would mitigate the risk that the incumbent licensee's investments may become stranded. We seek comment on this approach and its assumptions, as well as on other approaches that might offer an alternative to renewability and still encourage robust investment in the band. Could this approach promote competition and efficient use of spectrum?

    2. Geographic License Area

    The First Report and Order defined the geographic license area for each PAL as one census tract. Petitioners request that the Commission increase the geographic licensing area from census tracts to Partial Economic Area (PEAs). T-Mobile argues that doing so would “be consistent with the geographic licensing area that the Commission has already identified as best for 5G operations” in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding. Petitioners and some commenters contend that licensing PALs on a census tract-basis—which could result in over 500,000 PALs—will be challenging for SAS Administrators, the Commission, and licensees to manage, and will create unnecessary interference risks due to the large number of border areas that will need to be managed and maintained. Petitioners and some commenters contend that these challenges ultimately will make PALs unattractive to licensees and reduce investment. They argue that PEAs are small enough to allow for flexible and targeted networks, but large enough to reduce border areas and decrease administrative burdens. Some commenters also contend that a larger license area (along with a longer, renewable license term) will promote global harmonization of the 3.5 GHz Band for 5G development.

    Many commenters oppose expanding the geographic license area of PALs from census tracts to PEAs or other larger areas. These commenters argue that PEAs—especially in combination with other potential changes to the PAL licensing rules—could foreclose smaller entities from participating in the PAL auction. Some commenters similarly contend that enlarging the geographic area and extending the license term will effectively grant permanent spectrum rights to large carriers, and upend planned business models for targeted, local, and rural uses. Some of these commenters—including, Google and Sony, which have applied to be SAS Administrators—argue that managing licenses in over 70,000 geographic areas would not pose an undue burden “given the meaningful advances in database management, cloud computing, and other technologies and engineering systems in recent years.”

    NCTA and Charter suggest that county-sized license areas could strike a balance between preserving low barriers to entry and minimizing administrative burdens. Some commenters propose using a hybrid approach to offer more than one PAL license size (e.g., offering some licenses by PEAs and others by county or census tracts). GeoLinks similarly asks us to consider whether rural areas would benefit more from using census tracts or counties to ensure more timely broadband access to rural communities, while more urban areas could benefit from using PEAs.

    We seek comment on increasing the geographic licensing area of PALs to stimulate additional investment, promote innovation, and encourage efficient use of spectrum resources. We seek comment on this proposal and on the potential effects of this change on investment in and use of the 3.5 GHz Band. We also seek comment on whether a larger license area would provide additional flexibility to facilitate the deployment of a wide variety of technologies, including 5G.

    We seek comment on Petitioners' specific request to increase the license size of PALs to PEAs, and how this would affect investment in PALs—both investments currently underway and future PAL investment—and diversity of PAL uses and users. Would PEAs strike an appropriate balance between facilitating access to spectrum by both large and small providers while incentivizing investment in, and rapid deployment of, new technologies? We also note that, like census tracts, counties nest into PEAs, which in turn nest into EAs. This nesting would make it easier for operators to combine or partition their PEAs into the license area of their choice. Would the larger size of PEAs and the ability to combine and partition licenses to customize service areas effectively address the concerns raised by commenters and promote robust deployment in the band? Commenters should include cost-benefit analyses when comparing licensing PALs on a PEA-basis versus a census tract-basis, as well as for options in between these choices (e.g., licensing on a county-basis). Would PEAs effectively balance the objectives set forth in Section 309(j) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), including encouraging “efficient and intensive” use of the 3.5 GHz spectrum and prescribing license area designations that promote “an equitable distribution of licenses and services among geographic areas” and “economic opportunity for a wide variety of applications”? What impact would licensing PALs using PEAs have on smaller entities, rural deployments, and existing investments? Would PEA-based licensing facilitate compatible, authorized users and uses occupying the same spectrum?

    We also seek comment on alternatives or hybrid approaches, including those already in the record. Would counties, or a combination of PAL license areas (e.g., a hybrid combination of PEAs in urban areas and census tracts in rural areas, offering PALs of different sizes, such as PEAs and census tracts, or some other combination) ensure a diversity of auction participants, differing technologies, and rural deployments? Since we are offering seven PALs, commenters in favor of offering different license sizes in rural and urban areas should discuss what would be the appropriate balance between larger geographic areas and census tracts. Are there other possibilities that could promote such objectives? Should the Commission reconsider package bidding of census tracts or other geographic areas for a limited number of PALs? Would this approach promote our objectives? Would package bidding, bidding credits for certain bidders or areas, or other auction design mechanisms be appropriate for us to consider if we were to increase the license area? Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should adopt the bidding credits we used in the 600 MHz Band (Incentive Auction). Commenters should include a cost-benefit analysis of their proposed alternatives or hybrid approaches and discuss how their proposed approach appropriately balances the objectives set forth in Section 309(j) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j)).

    In addition, we seek comment generally on how changes to the license area (on their own, and in combination with changes to the license term) could affect auction complexity. How might such changes affect bidding strategies? How would a combination of license areas affect the auction mechanism and bidding strategies? Are there insights from bidders' experience during recent auctions that may be relevant in this context?

    In light of the proposed change to modify the geographic license area, as well as any other changes considered in this NPRM, should the Commission modify the current 40 megahertz spectrum aggregation limit? Should we remove it altogether? What are the costs and benefits of higher or lower limits? How would changes affect competition and new entrants?

    3. Secondary Markets

    In the Second Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-354 (FCC 16-55), the Commission prohibited Priority Access licensees from partitioning or disaggregating their licenses because the Commission found typical reasons for permitting partitioning and disaggregation in more traditionally licensed bands were not present in the 3.5 GHz Band. The Commission also determined that a light-touch leasing process could achieve the goal of making PAL spectrum use rights available in secondary markets—on a targeted, flexible basis—without the need for the Commission oversight required of partitioning and disaggregation.

    In its Petition, T-Mobile asks the Commission to consider allowing partitioning and disaggregation of PALs, if it permits licensing on a PEA basis. Several commenters agree that allowing partitioning and disaggregation will help ensure that PAL spectrum rights flow to their best use and support a wide variety of deployments. These commenters also argue that partitioning and disaggregation will encourage service to targeted areas, mitigating concerns that licensing larger area PALs might result in in inefficient spectrum use.

    Several commenters oppose the concept of secondary market transactions as a replacement for smaller geographic areas and shorter term PALs to encourage efficient use of spectrum by a variety of users. They argue that there is no guarantee that the licensee will lease or sell idle spectrum in the secondary market. Other commenters, however, suggest that, if the Commission were to make changes to the PAL license term, renewability, and geographic area, then the ability of a PAL licensee to partition or disaggregate its license on the secondary market could be a useful tool to ensure robust and targeted use of the spectrum throughout the license area.

    We propose to allow partitioning and disaggregation of PALs in secondary market transactions. Allowing partitioning and disaggregation would be consistent with other changes considered in this NPRM, and is consistent with the licensing paradigm for other similarly licensed services. We also anticipate that the ability to partition and disaggregate a PAL will be an effective way to improve spectral efficiency and facilitate targeted network deployments, particularly if the Commission adopts a longer license term or larger license area for PALs. We seek comment on this proposal and its underlying assumptions. If we were to adopt a larger geographic license area for some or all PALs, would allowing partitioning and disaggregation of PALs enable prospective PAL licensees to acquire PAL rights in smaller geographic areas where their business needs call for it? Are partitioning and disaggregation effective means to facilitate the ability of small entities to access the spectrum they desire for targeted, local deployments? If the Commission does not adopt some or all of the other proposed revisions to PALs, should we still allow partitioning and disaggregation? If so, why? To what extent would partitioning and disaggregation help the Commission facilitate the objectives of Section 309(j) (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), which, among other considerations, asks us to promote “economic opportunity for a wide variety of applications”?

    We note that several commenters argue the PAL licensees will lack an incentive to disaggregate or partition a larger, longer-term PAL. T-Mobile, in response, suggests that this “can be remedied by adopt[ing] reasonable performance requirements associated with renewal expectations.” We seek comment on the relationship between secondary market transactions and performance requirements. What types of requirements would be appropriate to encourage a robust secondary market for PALs to facilitate targeted and intensive spectrum use? How would requirements related to secondary markets interplay with construction requirements for PALs more broadly? How could performance requirements and secondary markets incentivize users to provide service to rural and other difficult-to-serve areas?

    4. SAS Public Disclosure of CBSD Registration Information

    In the First Report and Order, the Commission required that SAS Administrators make Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) registration information available to the general public. When doing so, however, SAS Administrators must “obfuscate the identities of the licensees.” In doing so, the Commission acknowledged “the concerns raised by commenters about disclosure of confidential business information to the public.”

    Both CTIA and T-Mobile, supported by several commenters, ask the Commission to eliminate the rule requiring public disclosure of CBSD registration information. Petitioners assert that the rule raises both competitive concerns and “cybersecurity and national security concerns.” AT&T also claims that “the SAS will be required to collect extensive data regarding users' network configuration, uses, and technical parameters”—data that “amounts to critical infrastructure data” that must be adequately protected to avoid competitive and cybersecurity concerns.” In addition, Petitioners and commenters argue that obfuscating the licensees' identities does not adequately address these concerns because it still may be possible to uncover the identities of individual licensees based on publicly available information. Petitioners and commenters also contend that, since potential GAA operators can coordinate directly with the SAS Administrators to deploy GAA services, the public disclosure requirement is unnecessary to ensure that operations in the band are effectively coordinated.

    Google, Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge (OTI/PK), and WISPA support retention of the current rule, arguing that it benefits potential operators that need to investigate the feasibility of deploying GAA or PAL service before incurring the cost of attempting to reserve or auction spectrum. OTI/PK contends that meaningful transparency allows incumbents and public advocacy groups to play a productive role in holding SAS Administrators and other stakeholders accountable for responsibilities such as military radar protection and ensuring that valuable PAL spectrum does not lie fallow. Google denies that anonymized public registration data presents security or competitive concerns and argues that such information is already available, as wireless carriers' transceiver locations are visible to a passerby, logged by crowd-sourced applications, and publicly documented. Google also notes that several aspiring SAS Administrators—including CTIA—already have negotiated a model sharing agreement, and that CTIA itself has stated that the agreement “provides the necessary protections for SAS customers' proprietary and competitively sensitive information, as well as end users' private information.” In response, AT&T argues that the model sharing agreement that Google references addresses SAS-to-SAS information sharing, not public availability of information, and that Google incorrectly assumes that licensees plan network deployment based on activities of others rather than on internal objectives and consumer behavior.

    Charter, Federated Wireless, and NCTA encourage the Commission to seek comment on how it could ensure that prospective users of the band can obtain sufficient information to execute network deployments without disclosing detailed CBSD registration information to the public.

    We propose to amend the current rules to prohibit SASs from disclosing publicly CBSD registration information that may compromise the security of critical network deployments or be considered competitively sensitive. We seek comment on the proposal and ask which specific information should be withheld from public disclosure to address the concerns raised by Petitioners and Commenters. We ask commenters to address the potential competitive, security, or other forms of risk presented by the rule, as well as on specific and actionable suggestions to mitigate these risks. Nothing we propose here will affect SAS-to-SAS information sharing requirements.

    We also note that some commenters claim that potential GAA and PAL users will use registration information to plan deployments. As such, we seek comment on how to appropriately balance the potential competitive and security risks with potential users' need for information about CBSD deployment. Is there a mechanism—other than full public disclosure of CBSD registration information—for potential users to plan future GAA and/or PAL deployments? For example, could potential users communicate with an SAS on a confidential basis? We also seek comment on whether there is certain information that the SAS can publicly provide while balancing data sensitivity and security concerns.

    5. Competitive Bidding Procedures for PALs a. Assignment of PALs

    Section 309(j) of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j)) requires that the Commission assign licenses using competitive bidding when “mutually exclusive applications are accepted for any initial license,” subject to certain exemptions not applicable to this band. Because of the “generic” nature of PAL frequency assignments, mutual exclusivity exists when multiple applicants apply to bid on more PALs than exist in a given census tract. In the First Report and Order, the Commission decided that, when there are two or more applicants for PALs in a given census tract, it will make available one fewer PAL than the total number of PALs for which all applicants have applied in that license area, up to a maximum of seven PALs. The Commission also concluded that assigning PALs on a non-auctioned basis would not result in the most efficient assignment of the spectrum. It therefore decided that, where there is only a single applicant for one or more PALs in a license area, it would not proceed to an auction or assign any PALs for that license area and there would only be shared GAA access to that spectrum until the next filing window for competitive bidding. In its Order on Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 12-354 (FCC 16-55), the Commission granted a limited exception for certain rural areas, finding it in the public interest to assign a PAL even if there is only a single applicant, given the likelihood of lower demand in rural areas.

    T-Mobile and several commenters ask the Commission to make all PALs available, regardless of the number of applications the Commission receives in any given license area. GeoLinks argues that, by prohibiting the assignment of PALs when there is only one interested carrier, the Commission will “surely create gaps in rural, sparsely populated parts of the country that could benefit from an interested service provider.” Further, several commenters, like AT&T and Ericsson, argue that the Commission's current policy will eventually phase out PAL licenses in a market with each subsequent auction if there is no renewal expectancy, rendering the auctions “essentially a game of musical chairs for PAL licensees.” No commenter opposes T-Mobile's mutual exclusivity proposal specifically.

    United States Cellular Corporation (USCC) argues that the Commission should assign PALs in any given license area by subjecting all PALs to a minimum opening bid and the existing spectrum aggregation limit of four PALs. If the aggregate demand in a license area does not exceed seven PALs, USCC suggests that the applicant(s) would receive the number of PALs for which they applied, subject to the payment of the minimum opening bid for those PALs, and remaining spectrum would be available on a GAA basis.

    Consistent with our proposals to lengthen the PAL license term, make them renewable, and increase the PAL geographic license area, we also propose to employ our standard practice for finding mutual exclusivity among accepted applications. We propose to eliminate the rule that limited the number of PALs the Commission would make available. We also propose to assign PALs even when there is only one applicant in a given license area, assuming the applicant is otherwise qualified. We seek comment on these changes, which appear consistent with the broad opposition to the current requirements already in the record. The other proposed changes to PAL licensing discussed in this NPRM—including longer, renewable license terms and a larger geographic area—would make PALs more similar to licenses offered in the Incentive Auction and other recent spectrum auctions, where there was no need for the requirements in Sections 96.29(c) and 96.29(d) of our rules (47 CFR 96.29(c) and 47 CFR 96.29(d)). We seek comment on this proposal. What are the costs and benefits of removing these requirements? Are these changes consistent with the statutory objectives of Section 309(j) (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), including to “promot[e]economic opportunity and competition,” “ensur[e] that new and innovative technologies are readily accessible,” “avoid[ ] excessive concentration of licenses” and “disseminat[e] licenses among a wide variety of applicants”; “recover[ ] for the public of a portion of the value of the of the public spectrum”; and promote “efficient and intensive use of electromagnetic spectrum.” Additionally, as fully described below, we also seek comment on whether a PAL for any given license area is mutually exclusive to GAA use in that area such that the Commission would have the authority to assign PALs by auction in those situations.

    In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted these two limitations on the assignment of PALs because it concluded that assigning PALs on a non-auctioned basis would not result in as efficient an assignment of the spectrum as licensing the spectrum for shared GAA use. The Commission found that ensuring widespread GAA use of spectrum in any geographic area for which it had not received mutually exclusive PAL applications was the best way to discharge its statutory obligation to “encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.” However, the Commission reached these conclusions regarding nonrenewable PALs that had substantially shorter license terms than we are now proposing to adopt for PALs. Under our current proposals, the use case for PALs could vary more significantly from GAA use than under our current rules. The Commission also noted in the First Report and Order that the determination of mutual exclusivity of PAL applications would not be a one-time event for this band, because PALs would be licensed for three-year, non-renewable terms and the Commission would periodically open application windows for new PALs, as well as interim filing windows to accept applications for unassigned PALs. If we adopt our proposal to increase PAL license terms to 10 years, such frequent application or filing windows likely would not be necessary. We seek comment on whether the circumstances that will pertain if our proposals regarding license term, renewability, and geographic area are adopted warrant our elimination of the current limits on the number of PALs we make available.

    Moreover, the record indicates that PALs will be more useful to a wide variety of potential licensees if PALs are renewable, longer term, and/or licensed for a larger geographic area. USCC suggests that, if the Commission adopts PEA-based license areas and a ten-year license period with a renewal expectancy, “it will be far less likely that the aggregate demand in any license area will be less than seven PALs.” We seek comment on whether our proposed changes in the term, renewability, and service area of PALs would make them more useful to a wider range of potential licensees and, if so, whether that would reduce the benefit of limiting the number of PALs available in a given license area or not assigning PALs in any area for which there is only one applicant.

    We note that, if we adopt the above proposal to make all of the PALs in a given license area available for assignment regardless of the number of applicants that have applied in that area, it would still be possible, albeit less likely, for the number of PALs being offered to exceed applicant demand in a given area. Similarly, if we were to assign PALs in a license area for which only a single applicant applied for a PAL, as some commenters advocate, in those instances we would not have accepted mutually exclusive PAL applications, which is the prerequisite for assigning PALs by auction. While the Commission has the authority in both situations to assign the PALs on a non-auctioned basis, we seek comment on whether it would be consistent with our statutory objectives to do so on a non-auctioned basis given the nature of the changes we propose to adopt for PALs. Such a circumstance raises questions of how to accommodate GAA use such that the sharing envisioned within this band could occur. To the extent necessary and as an alternative, we also seek comment on whether we nevertheless have authority to assign PALs by auction in these situations because a PAL for any given area is mutually exclusive to GAA use in that area. If we were to assign PALs by auction in these situations, applicants would be required to submit at least the minimum opening bid for each PAL consistent with the Commission's general competitive bidding procedures. Would such an approach be consistent with our statutory requirements and objectives under Section 309 of Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j))? Commenters that support this proposal should describe in detail the mechanism by which such a change would work, particularly within the sharing regime contemplated in the 3.5 GHz Band, and how it would fit within the Commission's statutory requirements.

    b. Bidding on Specific PAL License Blocks

    Under the current rules, Priority Access licensees do not bid on specific spectrum blocks. Rather, SAS Administrators assign frequencies based on the amount of spectrum that the PAL licensee is authorized to use in a given license area. Licensees may request a particular channel or frequency range from the SAS, but are not guaranteed a particular assignment. The SAS will “assign geographically contiguous PALs held by the same Priority Access Licensee to the same channels in each geographic area” and “assign multiple channels held by the same Priority Access Licensee to contiguous frequencies within the same License Area” when it is feasible to do so. T-Mobile instead asks the Commission to allow applicants to bid on particular channels, rather than bidding solely on an amount of spectrum that will later be assigned by the SAS.

    A few commenters support T-Mobile's proposal. Ericsson argues that this approach would ensure a “stable and predictable” spectrum environment, while 5G Americas and GSMA argue that it would encourage robust use of the band for 5G and would align with what other countries have planned for the band.

    Commenters opposing this proposal question how it would work given the need to protect incumbent rights. Vivint Wireless calls it “unnecessary and a bit confusing,” arguing that it “would seem to limit the available channels should a PAL licensee need to move to avoid interfering with a protected incumbent.” Google argues that, if the Commission permitted parties to manually select frequencies, an operator could position itself in the middle of the PAL spectrum, preventing other PAL holders from aggregating contiguous blocks. It argues that “the current SAS dynamic assignment framework allows protection of federal incumbent and Priority Access operations while enabling a seamless experience for end users of [Citizens Broadband Radio Service] services.”

    We seek comment on the feasibility and desirability of allowing PAL licensees to bid on specific channel assignments. How could the Commission accomplish this given the other constraints of the band, including the need to protect incumbents? Would having a separate voluntary channel assignment phase of the auction—as was done recently in the Incentive Auction—work in this context? For example, could we first allow applicants to bid on the amount of PAL spectrum they desire, then in a separate round, allow PAL bidders to value and bid on specific channel assignments? Would this allow PAL bidders to value their PAL spectrum more accurately by knowing their primary location vis-a-vis federal and other incumbents and adjacent band licensees? Would the Commission need to make changes to the assignment phase framework used in the Incentive Auction to accommodate interference protection of federal incumbents by PALs? And if so, what changes would it need to make? Should the Commission adopt rules to ensure that bidders are assigned to contiguous frequencies within a geographic area, where possible? We also seek comment on what alternative auction methodologies might be appropriate to balance the SAS Administrator's need to dynamically avoid interference with Priority Access licensees' desire for certainty and the ability to aggregate contiguous spectrum. Are there other auction designs that could better balance interests in this context? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of any proposed approaches.

    B. Emissions and Interference Limits

    In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted the following emission limits:

    • −13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10 megahertz from the assigned channel edge;

    • −25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz from the assigned channel edge down to 3530 megahertz and up to 3720 megahertz;

    • −40 dBm/MHz below 3530 megahertz and above 3720 megahertz.

    In the Second Report and Order, the Commission denied petitions for reconsideration that requested changes to these limits.

    T-Mobile's Petition requests changes to the emission limits that it claims are necessary to support channels wider than 10 megahertz without power reduction. Specifically, T-Mobile argues that the −13 dBm/MHz limit should apply from 0-20 megahertz outside the channel edge, and the −25 dBm/MHz requirement should be eliminated (or, alternatively, apply at least 20 megahertz from the channel edge). Outside of the 3550-3700 MHz band, T-Mobile contends that the −40 dBm/MHz limit should be eliminated (or, alternatively, the transition gap should be 40 megahertz instead of 20 megahertz).

    Qualcomm agrees that the emission limits should be relaxed to facilitate wider channels without power reduction. Qualcomm argues that, for single or aggregated channels that are the channel bandwidth (B) megahertz wide (up to 40 megahertz), the −13 dBm/MHz requirement should apply from 0 to B megahertz above and below the channel edges, and the−25 dBm/MHz requirement should apply at frequencies beyond B megahertz. Qualcomm does not request changes to the −40 dBm/MHz emission limit outside of the 3550-3700 megahertz band. Several other commenters also support relaxation of the emission limits.

    Others, including Motorola Solutions and Vivint Wireless, support the current emissions limits. Motorola Solutions argues that no changes are necessary because current technologies can be utilized to meet the existing limits, and the existing rules allow higher power with wider bandwidth which helps counteract the need for power reduction. Vivint Wireless asserts that relaxing the emissions limits will increase the risk of interference between adjacent channel operations.

    Our current rules were designed to accommodate 10 megahertz and 20 megahertz channels. We propose to relax the emissions mask in a manner that will be scalable to accommodate wider bandwidth channels. Petitioners and commenters agree on the value of the first step of attenuation at −13 dBm/MHz—starting at the channel edge—and many of them agree on the value of the lowest attenuation in the band at −25 dBm/MHz. We believe that relaxation of the current emission limits, while enabling efficient frequency and power assignments, would promote innovation and investment in the band and allow operators to make use of wider channels without reducing their transmit power. However, we are not persuaded by T-Mobile's proposals to eliminate the −25 dBm/MHz limit or to eliminate the −40 dBm/MHz limit below 3530 megahertz and above 3720 megahertz. We also are not persuaded by T-Mobile's proposal to increase the transition bandwidth to 40 megahertz outside of the band, because of the impact these changes would have on protecting adjacent operations. Rather, we seek comment on two alternative proposals. First, we seek comment on Qualcomm's proposal to: (1) Extend the −13 dBm/MHz limit from 0 to 100% of B; (2) apply the −25 dBm/MHz limit beyond 100% of B; and (3) not change the −40 dBm/MHz limit specified in Section 96.41(e)(2). Second, we seek comment on a more graduated reduction of the emission limits in Qualcomm's proposal, with the addition of an attenuation step between the channel edge and a full channel bandwidth from the channel edge, as follows:

    • −13 dBm/MHz from 0 to B/2 (i.e., 50% of B) megahertz from the assigned channel edge;

    • −20 dBm/MHz from B/2 to B (i.e., 100% of B) megahertz from the assigned channel edge;

    • −25 dBm/MHz beyond B megahertz from the assigned channel edge, down to 3530 megahertz and up to 3720 megahertz;

    • −40 dBm/MHz below 3530 megahertz and above 3720 megahertz.

    We seek comment on these two proposals and on the tradeoffs in the number and levels of the attenuation steps. A more relaxed mask gives more margin to accommodate bandwidths wider than 10 megahertz, although this could raise the potential for increased interference to users operating on adjacent channels. We seek quantitative analysis of these tradeoffs and we seek comment on whether alternative attenuation steps could balance these tradeoffs more effectively. What is the balance between vendor cost, radio performance, and spectrum efficiency? For example, are there tradeoffs in the design complexity of out-of-band signal reduction techniques, balanced with flexible and efficient spectrum sharing? Will either or both of the proposed masks facilitate the use of wider channels in the band without requiring power reduction?

    In the second proposal above, we seek comment on an attenuation step of −20 dBm/MHz between −13 dBm/MHz and −25 dBm/MHz, between one-half channel (50% of B) and one channel bandwidth (100% of B) from the channel edge. This additional attenuation step may enable more efficient SAS-based frequency and power assignments while facilitating wider channel bandwidths. Without this step, frequency separation between PAL channels (and other GAA/PAL channels) may be larger under some operational use cases. We seek comment on the capabilities of current and future CBSDs and end user devices to meet these masks, and the attenuation steps used in other bands for other wireless services. We also seek quantitative analysis of TDD interference scenarios to assess the tradeoff and balance between the emission mask and the statistical likelihood of interference between licensees.

    We note that studies have shown that device output power and out-of-band emissions are likely to be lower than regulatory limits or industry standards. For instance, an Ofcom study describes a case where the actual out-of-band emissions is lower than the minimum requirements specified in 3GPP by ~8 dB in the first adjacent channel. The study also shows the non-linear effect of out-of-band emissions at maximum power, and higher reduction in out-of-band emissions for every dB of reduction in fundamental transmit power. Ofcom notes that the increased emission leakage that accompanies increasing fundamental power is due to the non-linear behavior of the power amplifier when it is driven into saturation. What are the likely effects of this behavior in devices that will be deployed in the 3.5 GHz Band? We seek comment and quantitative evidence that actual out-of-channel emissions in the 3.5 GHz Band will be substantially lower than worst case values. Are the margins found in the Ofcom study typical and representative of the margins that can be expected in 3.5 GHz?

    We also seek comment on the tradeoffs inherent in any change to the emission mask(s) in the band. Specifically, what are the tradeoffs between the margins of actual emissions, and the spectral efficiency of frequency assignments in the 3.5 GHz Band? Will either or both of the proposed masks meet the more restrictive 3GPP Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio (ACLR) emissions limit (i.e., 30 dBc for user devices and 45 dBc for base stations)? Finally, given the existing OOBE limits that apply above 3720 MHz and below 3530 MHz—which we do not propose to change—we seek comment on whether either of these proposals would facilitate the use of wider bandwidth channels at or near the band edges.

    III. Procedural Matters Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this NPRM, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before the dates on the first page of this NPRM. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

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

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 96

    Telecommunications, Radio.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 96 as follows:

    PART 96—CITIZENS BROADBAND RADIO SERVICE 1. The authority citation for part 96 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307.

    2. Section 96.25 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 96.25 Priority access licenses.

    (a) An applicant must file an application for an initial authorization for all PALs desired. Initial authorizations shall be granted in accordance with Section 96.29. Priority Access Licensees must operate CBSDs consistent with the technical rules and interference protection requirements set for in this part.

    (b) * * *

    (3) License term. Each PAL has a ten-year license term. Licensees must file a renewal application in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.949.

    § 96.27 [Removed and Reserved]
    3. Remove and reserve § 96.27. 4. Section 96.29 is revised to read as follows:
    § 96.29 Competitive bidding procedures.

    Mutually exclusive initial applications for Priority Access Licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.

    5. Section 96.32 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 96.32 Priority access assignments of authorization, transfer of control, and leasing arrangements.

    (b) Priority Access Licensees may partition or disaggregate their licenses and partially assign or transfer their licenses and may enter into de facto leasing arrangements for a portion of their licenses.

    6. Section 96.41 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
    § 96.41 General radio requirements.

    (e) * * *

    (2) Additional protection levels. Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the conducted power of any emissions below 3530 MHz or above 3720 MHz shall not exceed −40dBm/MHz.

    § 96.55 [Amended].
    7. Section 96.55 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3).
    [FR Doc. 2017-25672 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 91 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161; FXMB12330900000//189//FF09M13200] RIN 1018-BB23 Revision of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Revised proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising our previous proposal to revise regulations governing the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest (also known as the Federal Duck Stamp Contest (contest)). The proposals in this document are revisions to our February 11, 2016, proposed rule and consist of further updates to the scientific names of species on our list of contest design subjects, updates to recognize technological advances in stamp design and printing, and proposed requirements specific to the 2018 contest.

    DATES:

    We will accept comments that we receive on or before December 28, 2017. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161, which is the docket number for this proposed rule. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.

    By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comment Procedures and Public Availability of Comments under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzanne Fellows, (703) 358-2145, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background History of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Program

    On March 16, 1934, Congress passed, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, it required all waterfowl hunters 16 years or older to buy a stamp annually. The revenue generated was originally earmarked for the Department of Agriculture, but 5 years later was transferred to the Department of the Interior and the Service.

    In the years since its enactment, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Today, some 1.8 million stamps are sold each year, and as of 2017, Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $1 billion for the preservation of more than 6 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the United States. Numerous other birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have similarly prospered because of habitat protection made possible by the program. An estimated one-third of the Nation's endangered and threatened species find food or shelter in refuges preserved by Duck Stamp funds. Moreover, the protected wetlands help dissipate storms, purify water supplies, store flood water, and nourish fish hatchlings important for sport and commercial fishermen.

    History of the Duck Stamp Contest

    The first Federal Duck Stamp was designed at President Roosevelt's request by Jay N. “Ding” Darling, a nationally known political cartoonist for the Des Moines Register and a noted hunter and wildlife conservationist. In subsequent years, noted wildlife artists were asked to submit designs. The first Federal Duck Stamp Contest was opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to enter, and 65 artists submitted a total of 88 design entries. Since then, the contest has attracted large numbers of entrants, and it remains the only art competition of its kind sponsored by the U.S. Government. The Secretary of the Interior appoints a panel of noted art, waterfowl, and philatelic authorities to select each year's winning design. Winners receive no compensation for the work, except a pane of their stamps, but winners may sell prints of their designs, which are sought by hunters, conservationists, and art collectors.

    Theme of 2019-2020 Stamp

    Throughout the history of the Federal Duck Stamp, there has been an effort to increase its messaging capabilities. For example, in 1959, the theme of the contest was “Retrievers Save Game,” and artists were required to produce a design which illustrated this theme. The resulting 1959-1960 stamp, the “King Buck,” featuring a black Labrador Retriever and a mallard, is arguably among the most identifiable Federal Duck Stamps. With the introduction of the 1998-1999 pressure-sensitive adhesive stamp, the Service developed a dollar-bill sized stamp carrier which provided additional area for visual and verbal messages. Additional opportunities exist for messages on the back of the stamp as well as on the appreciation certificates that are available to customers interested in the Duck Stamp Program.

    To address Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation; 72 FR 46537, August 20, 2007) and Department of the Interior Secretary's Order 3356 (Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories; September 15, 2017), the theme of the 2019-2020 stamp and accompanying certificate of appreciation will be “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage.” This will provide visual and verbal recognition to the contributions waterfowl hunters make to habitat conservation. As the only ones required to purchase a Federal Duck Stamp, waterfowl hunters have been the primary supporters of the Federal Duck Stamp program and have enabled the purchase of wetland habitats that support both hunted and nonhunted species, assist in flood control and water purification, and provide communities with an economic stimulus. By celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage and showing hunters in a positive light as active wildlife conservationists on the 2019-2020 stamp, we will celebrate their contributions to providing public lands and robust wildlife populations. Through additional messaging, we also hope to engage Americans of all ages and backgrounds who may not have traditionally realized the benefits of wetland conservation.

    Revised Proposed Changes to the Regulations at 50 CFR Part 91

    On February 11, 2016, we published a proposed rule (81 FR 7279) to revise the regulations at 50 CFR part 91 governing the annual Federal Duck Stamp Contest. Specifically, we proposed to update our contact information; update common names and spelling of species on our list of contest design subjects; correct minor grammar errors; and specify the requirement to include a second, appropriate, migratory bird species in the artwork design beginning with the 2016 contest. We did not make that rule final. Now, with this document, we are revising that proposed rule.

    Retained Provisions of the February 11, 2016, Proposed Rule

    As set forth in the February 11, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 7279), we continue to propose to:

    • Update §§ 91.1(b) and 91.11 to provide current and accurate contact information for the Service's Duck Stamp Office.

    • Update the scientific and common names on our list at § 91.4 of species that are potential contest design subjects to ensure that list contains names currently accepted by the American Ornithological Society (AOS) http://www.americanornithology.org/; see also the AOS Checklist at http://checklist.aou.org/taxa/; this checklist is our standard reference on taxonomy, nomenclature, and capitalization). Some of the names differ in this revised proposed rule from those set forth in our February 11, 2016, proposed rule. Those differences are explained in Revised Provisions, below.

    • Correct minor grammar errors in our regulations at 50 CFR part 91.

    For the proposed text of §§ 91.1(b), 91.4, and 91.11, refer to our February 11, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 7279).

    Revised Provisions

    The revisions to our February 11, 2016, proposed rule contained in this document consist of:

    • Further updates to the scientific names of species on our list at § 91.4;

    • Updates to recognize technological advances in stamp design and printing;

    • Addition of judging and subject matter regulations to require that each depiction illustrates the theme “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” for the 2018 contest.

    Further Updates to Species' Scientific Names

    Section 91.4 contains our list of eligible waterfowl species. For each year's contest, we choose five or fewer species from the list; one or more of those species (or a combination thereof; see § 91.14) are the only acceptable subjects for entries during that contest year. We announce each year's eligible species on our Web site and in an annual contest brochure. Our list at § 91.4 contains scientific and common names accepted by the AOS.

    Since we last revised our regulations, and again since we published our proposed rule on February 11, 2016, the AOS has changed the listing order among species and updated several species names. The further updates contained in this revised proposed rule are to two categories: (1) Geese, and (2) dabbling ducks. For geese, the revised proposed changes would correct the genus name of Emperor, Snow, and Ross's geese to Anser, so that they would read, “Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus),” “Snow Goose (Anser caerulescens),” and “Ross's Goose (Anser rossii),” respectively.

    For dabbling ducks, the revised proposed changes would correct the genus name of Blue-winged and Cinnamon teal and Northern Shoveler to Spatula, so that they would read, “Blue-winged Teal (Spatula discors),” “Cinnamon Teal (Spatula cyanoptera),” and “Northern Shoveler (Spatula clypeata),” respectively. We would also correct the genus name of Gadwall and American Wigeon to Mareca, so that the entries read, “Gadwall (Mareca strepera)” and “American Wigeon (Mareca americana).”

    We propose these further changes to our list at § 91.4 to reflect the most current scientific names of eligible waterfowl species.

    Updating Technological Advances in Stamp Design and Printing

    Currently both § 91.15 and § 91.23 contain regulations and references to a stamp production process that is no longer used. We propose to remove these outdated statements to reflect current technology in this revised proposed rule.

    Depicting the Theme “Celebrating our Waterfowl Hunting Heritage” in 2018 Artwork Entries

    Current § 91.14 explains that a live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible waterfowl species must be the dominant feature of the design, but that the design may depict other appropriate elements such as hunting dogs, as long as an eligible waterfowl species is in the foreground and clearly the focus of attention. In this revised proposed rule, we propose that, for 2018, contest entries must include one or more elements that reflect the theme “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage.”

    Section 91.21(b) outlines the qualification of the judging panel. We also propose that, for 2018, all selected contest judges must have an understanding and appreciation of the waterfowl hunting heritage and be able to recognize scenery or objects related to waterfowl hunting.

    Finally, § 91.23 sets forth the scoring criteria for the contest. We propose to specify that, for 2018, entries will also be judged on how well they illustrate the theme of “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage.”

    The proposed changes to the regulations concerning the theme of “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” would be in effect only for the 2018 contest.

    Public Comments Procedures

    To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible, we request that you send relevant information for our consideration. We will accept public comments we receive on or before the date listed above in DATES. We are striving to ensure that any amendments to the regulations resulting from our February 11, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 7279) and this revised proposed rule would be in effect with sufficient time for artists to prepare submissions by the June opening of the 2018 contest. The comments that will be most useful are those that you support by quantitative information or studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

    You must submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed above in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information, such as your address, telephone number, or email address—will be posted on the Web site. Please note that comments submitted to this Web site are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be publically viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several days after submission.

    If you mail or hand-carry a hardcopy comment directly to us that includes personal information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

    In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection in two ways:

    (1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, select the type of documents you want to view under the Document Type heading.

    (2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to view the comments and materials in person by contacting the person listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Public Availability of Comments

    As stated above in more detail, before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publically available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Required Determinations

    For this revised proposed rule, we affirm the following required determinations provided in our February 11, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 7279):

    • Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563);

    • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2));

    • Federalism (Executive Order 13132);

    • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);

    • Takings (Executive Order 12630);

    • Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988);

    • Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);

    • Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes (Executive Order 13175); and

    • Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211).

    We provide new required determinations as follows:

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The changes we propose are intended primarily to clarify the requirements for the contest. These changes would affect individuals, not businesses or other small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    We therefore certify that, if adopted, this rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.

    Executive Order 13771

    This rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    Clarity of This Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized;

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 91

    Hunting, Wildlife.

    Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to further amend 50 CFR part 91, as proposed to be amended at 81 FR 7279 (February 11, 2016), as set forth below:

    PART 91—MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING AND CONSERVATION STAMP CONTEST 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 718j; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    2. Amend § 91.4 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 91.4 Eligible species. (b) Geese. (1) Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus) (2) Snow Goose (including “white” and “blue” morphs) (Anser caerulescens) (3) Ross's Goose (Anser rossii) (4) Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) (5) Brant (Branta bernicla) (6) Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii) (7) Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) (d) Dabbling Ducks. (1) Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) (2) Blue-winged Teal (Spatula discors) (3) Cinnamon Teal (Spatula cyanoptera) (4) Northern Shoveler (Spatula clypeata) (5) Gadwall (Mareca strepera) (6) American Wigeon (Mareca americana) (7) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) (8) American Black Duck (Anas rubripes) (9) Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula) (10) Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) (11) Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca)
    3. Revise § 91.14 to read as follows:
    § 91.14 Restrictions on subject matter for entry.

    (a) A live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible waterfowl species must be the dominant feature of the design. The design may depict more than one of the eligible species. The judges' overall mandate is to select the best design that will make an interesting, useful, and attractive duck stamp that will be accepted and prized by hunters, stamp collectors, conservationists, and others. The design must be the contestant's original hand-drawn creation. The entry design may not be copied or duplicated from previously published art, including photographs, or from images in any format published on the Internet. Photographs, computer-generated art, or art produced from a computer printer or other computer/mechanical output device (airbrush method excepted) are not eligible to be entered into the contest and will be disqualified. An entry submitted in a prior contest that was not selected for a Federal or State stamp design may be submitted in the current contest if the entry meets the criteria set forth in this section.

    (b) The 2018 Contest. In addition to the restrictions set forth in paragraph (a), in 2018 only, designs will also be required to include appropriate hunting-related accessories and/or scenes celebrating the Federal Duck Stamp's long-standing connection as part of our Nation's waterfowl hunting heritage and the contributions to conservation made by waterfowl hunters. Designs may include, but are not limited to, hunting dogs, hunting scenes, hunting equipment, waterfowl decoys, managed waterfowl areas as the background of habitat scenes, or other designs that represent our waterfowl hunting heritage. The design chosen will clearly meet the theme of “celebrating our hunting heritage.”

    § 91.15 [Removed and Reserved]
    4. Remove and reserve § 91.15. 5. In § 91.21, designate the text in paragraph (b) after the paragraph header as paragraph (b)(1) and add paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 91.21 Selection and qualification of contest judges. (b) Qualifications. (1) * * *

    (2) The 2018 Contest. In 2018 only, it will also be mandatory that all selected judges have an understanding and appreciation of the waterfowl hunting heritage and be able to recognize waterfowl hunting paraphernalia.

    6. Revise § 91.23 to read as follows:
    § 91.23 Scoring criteria for contest.

    (a) Entries will be judged on the basis of anatomical accuracy, artistic composition, and suitability for reduction in the production of a stamp.

    (b) The 2018 Contest. In 2018 only, entries will also be judged on how well they illustrate the theme of “celebrating our hunting heritage.”

    Dated: November 8, 2017. Jason Larrabee, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25661 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 170901861-7861-01] RIN 0648-BH08 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Biennial Specifications AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to implement annual harvest specifications and management measures to establish the allowable catch levels for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast (California, Oregon and Washington) for the fishing years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. This rule is proposed pursuant to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The proposed harvest guideline (HG) and annual catch target (ACT) for the 2017-2018 fishing year are 26,293 metric tons (mt) and 25,293 mt respectively. The proposed HG and ACT for the 2018-2019 fishing year are 23,840 mt and 22,840 mt respectively. If the fishery attains the ACT in either fishing year, the directed fishery will close, reserving the difference between the HG and ACT as a 1,000 mt set-aside for incidental landings in other CPS fisheries and other sources of mortality. If the HG is reached, all retention would be prohibited through the end of the fishing year. This rule is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific mackerel stock off the U.S. West Coast.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0134, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0134, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4250; Attn: Joshua Lindsay.

    Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Copies of the report, “Pacific Mackerel Biomass Projection Estimate for USA Management in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019” may be obtained from the West Coast Regional Office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., NMFS manages the Pacific mackerel fishery in the U.S. EEZ off the West Coast in accordance with the CPS FMP. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set annual harvest specifications for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the FMP. The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement these harvest specifications, which include allowable harvest levels (ACT/HG/annual catch level [ACL]), as well as annual catch reference points (overfishing limit [OFL] and acceptable biological catch [ABC]) that take into consideration uncertainty surrounding the current biomass estimates for Pacific mackerel for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 fishing years.

    During public meetings each year, biomass estimates for Pacific mackerel are presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (CPSMT), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (CPSAS) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), where the biomass estimates and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. These biomass estimates are then presented to the Council along with the calculated OFL, ABC, ACL, HG and ACT recommendations and comments from the CPSMT, CPSAS and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts biomass estimates and makes its harvest specification recommendations to NMFS. Biennial specifications published in the Federal Register establish these allowable harvest levels (i.e., ACT/ACL/HG) for the upcoming two Pacific mackerel fishing years. This is the first proposed rule where harvest specifications are being adopted for the upcoming two fishing years (2017-2018 and 2018-2019) per the recently published final rule (82 FR 35687; August 1, 2017) that changed the CPS FMP management framework so that Pacific mackerel harvest specifications could be adopted biennially instead of annually.

    The control rules in the CPS FMP include the HG control rule, which in conjunction with the OFL and ABC rules, are used to manage harvest levels for Pacific mackerel. According to the FMP, the quota for the principal commercial fishery, the HG, is determined using the FMP-specified HG formula. The HG is based, in large part, on the current estimate of stock biomass. The biomass estimate is an explicit part of the various harvest control rules for Pacific mackerel, and as the estimated biomass decreases or increases from one year to the next, the resulting allowable catch levels similarly trend. The harvest control rule in the CPS FMP is HG = [(Biomass-Cutoff) * Fraction * Distribution] with the parameters described as follows:

    1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific mackerel for the 2017-2018 management season is 143,403 mt. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific mackerel for the 2018-2019 management season 131,724 mt.

    2. Cutoff. This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 18,200 mt.

    3. Fraction. The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 18,200 mt that may be harvested. This is set in the FMP at 30 percent.

    4. Distribution. The average portion of the Pacific mackerel biomass estimated in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast is 70 percent and is based on the average historical larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource according to the logbooks of aerial fish-spotters.

    The Council has recommended and NMFS is proposing, Pacific mackerel harvest specifications and management measures for both the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 fishing years. For the 2017-2018 Pacific mackerel fishing year these include an OFL of 30,115 metric tons (mt), an ABC and ACL of 27,510 mt, a HG of 26,293 mt, and an annual ACT of 25,293 mt. For the 2018-2019 Pacific mackerel fishing year these include an OFL of 27,662 mt, and ABC and ACL of 25,269 mt, a HG of 23,840 mt, and an ACT of 22,840 mt. The Pacific mackerel fishing season runs from July 1 to June 30. These catch specifications are based on the control rules established in the CPS FMP and biomass estimates of 143,403 mt (2017-2018) and 131,724 mt (2018-2019); these biomass estimates are the result of a full stock assessment completed in June 2015 and a subsequent catch-only projection estimate completed in June 2017 by NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center and approved by the Council's SSC and the Council at their June 2017 meeting as best available science (see ADDRESSES).

    Under this proposed action, upon the unlikely attainment of the ACT in either fishing year, directed fishing would close, reserving the difference between the HG and ACT (1,000 mt) as a set aside for incidental landings in other fisheries and other sources of mortality. For the remainder of the fishing year, incidental landings would be constrained to a 45-percent incidental catch allowance when Pacific mackerel are landed with other CPS (in other words, no more than 45 percent by weight of the CPS landed per trip may be Pacific mackerel) or up to 3 mt of Pacific mackerel could be landed incidentally in non-CPS fisheries.1 Upon attainment or projected attainment of the HG, no retention of Pacific mackerel would be allowed even as incidental catch. The purpose of the incidental set-aside and allowance of an incidental fishery is to allow for the restricted incidental landings of Pacific mackerel in other fisheries, particularly other CPS fisheries, when the directed fishery is closed to reduce potential discard of Pacific mackerel and allow for continued prosecution of other important stocks that may school with Pacific mackerel.

    1 Live bait fishing is excluded from closures of the directed fishery, and Amendment 16 to the CPS FMP, if approved, would allow very small directed fisheries to continue even when most directed were closed.

    The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of any closure of either (1) directed fishing (when harvest levels near or take the ACT) or (2) retention—including by incidental fishing (when harvest levels near or attain the HG). Additionally, to ensure the regulated community is informed of any closure, NMFS will also make announcements through other means available, including fax, email, and mail to fishermen, processors, and state fishery management agencies. This rule would also add paragraph (p) to the prohibitions section at 50 CFR 660.505 referencing the prohibition on retention, possession, or landing of Pacific mackerel for the remainder of the year after the closure date specified in the Federal Register notice published by the Regional Administrator.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:

    For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    Pacific mackerel are principally caught off southern California within the limited entry portion (south of 39 degrees N. latitude; Point Arena, California) of the CPS fishery and is one component of CPS fisheries off the U.S. West Coast, which also includes the fisheries for Pacific sardine, northern anchovy and market squid. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are those vessels that harvest Pacific mackerel as part of the West Coast CPS purse seine fleet and are all considered small business under the above size standards. Currently there are 58 vessels permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2016 for those vessels was well below the threshold level of $11 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Therefore, this rule would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.

    NMFS used the ex-vessel revenue information for a profitability analysis, as the cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was limited or unavailable. For the 2016-2017 fishing year, the HG was 21,161 mt and was divided into an ACT of 20,161 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. Approximately 1,492.16 mt of Pacific mackerel was harvested in the 2016-2017 fishing year with an estimated ex-vessel value of approximately $417,616.

    The HG for the 2017-2018 Pacific mackerel fishing year is 26,293 mt, with an ACT of 25,293 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. The HG for the 2018-2019 Pacific mackerel fishing year is 23,840 mt with an ACT of 22,840 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. These proposed ACTs are similar to the ACT established for the 2016-2017 fishing year (20,161 mt), thus it is highly unlikely that the ACTs proposed in this rule will limit the potential profitability to the fleet from catching Pacific mackerel compared to last season or recent catch levels, as shown below. The annual average U.S. Pacific mackerel harvest in recent years (2010-2015) has been about 5,000 mt. In this period, the landings have not exceeded 11,800 mt. Additionally, annual average landings during the last decade (2005-2015) have not been restricted by the applicable quota. Accordingly, vessel income from fishing is not expected to be altered as a result of this rule as it compares to recent catches in the fishery, including under the previous season's regulations.

    Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have adverse or disproportional economic impact on these small business entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.

    This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. In § 660.505, add paragraph (p) to read as follows:
    § 660.505 Prohibitions.

    (p) Retain, possess or land Pacific mackerel after an announcement under § 660.511(j) that the harvest guideline has been taken or is projected to be reached soon.

    3. In § 660.511, add paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:
    § 660.511 Catch restrictions.

    (i) The following harvest specifications apply for Pacific mackerel:

    (1) For the Pacific mackerel fishing season July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, the harvest guideline is 26,293 mt and the ACT is 25,293 mt;

    (2) For the Pacific mackerel fishing season July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, the harvest guideline is 23,840 mt and the ACT of 22,840 mt.

    (j) When an ACT in paragraph (i) of this section has been reached or is projected to be reached soon, then for the remainder of the Pacific mackerel fishing season, Pacific mackerel may not be targeted and landings of Pacific mackerel may not exceed 45 percent of landings when Pacific mackerel are landed with other CPS (in other words, no more than 45 percent by weight of the CPS landed per trip may be Pacific mackerel), except that up to 3 mt of Pacific mackerel may be landed without landing any other CPS. When a harvest guideline in paragraph (i) of this section has been reached or is projected to be reached soon, no further retention of Pacific mackerel is allowed through the end of the Pacific mackerel fishing season. The Regional Administer shall announce in the Federal Register the date that an ACT or the harvest guideline is reached or is expected to be reached, and the date and time that the restrictions described in this paragraph go into effect.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25614 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 227 Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Notices 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, November 28, 2017, at 11:00:00 a.m. Central for a discussion on Hearing preparations for the Barriers to Voting in Louisiana report.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 28, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. Central. Public Call Information: Dial: 800-279-9534, Conference ID: 4587545

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Barreras, 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: 800-279-9534, conference ID: 4587545. 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: November 22, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25635 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Participant Statistical Areas Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.

    Form Number(s):

    20PSAP-F-500—State Recognized Tribes Update Form. 20PSAP-F-510—Contact Update Form. 20PSAP-F-511—Product Preference Form. 20PSAP-F-520—State Tribal Liaison Contact Update Form. 20PSAP-F-530—Federally Recognized Tribe Contact Update Form. 20PSAP-F-540—Federally Recognized Tribe Product Preference Form.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Number of Respondents: 3,801.

    Average Hours per Response: varies per Fiscal Year (FY).

    Average Time per Response per FY 2018: 5.

    Average Time per Response per FY 2019: 25.

    Average Time per Response per FY 2020: 10.

    Burden Hours: 152,040 (All Phases, All FYs).

    FY 2018 Burden Hours (Internal Review Phase): 19,005

    FY 2019 Burden Hours (Delineation Phase): 95,025

    FY 2020 Burden Hours (Verification Phase): 38,010

    Needs and Uses

    The Partnership Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) is one of many voluntary geographic partnership programs. PSAP collects suggested statistical boundaries to update the U.S. Census Bureau's geographic database of addresses, streets, and boundaries. The Census Bureau uses its geographic database to link demographic data from surveys and the decennial Census to locations and areas, such as cities, school districts, and counties. To tabulate statistics by localities, the Census Bureau must have accurate addresses and boundaries.

    The boundaries collected in PSAP and other geographic programs will create census blocks, which are the building blocks for all Census Bureau geographic boundaries. The addresses collected in the 2020 Census Local Update of Census Addresses Operation (LUCA) will place households in a specific census block. While the geographic programs differ in requirements, timeframe, and participants, PSAP and the other geographic programs all follow the same basic process:

    1. The Census Bureau invites eligible participants to the program. For PSAP, the Census Bureau invites federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native Regional Associations, local or regional planning agencies, and council of government officials.

    2. If they elect to participate in the program, participants receive a copy of the boundaries or addresses the Census Bureau has on file. PSAP participants receive a free customized mapping software.

    3. Participants review the boundaries or addresses in the Census Bureau provided software and update them if needed. For PSAP, the Census Bureau strongly recommends that PSAP participants reach out to local governments to collect updates.

    4. Participants return their updates to the Census Bureau.

    5. The Census Bureau updates their geographic database with boundary updates from participants.

    6. The Census Bureau uses the newly updated boundaries and addresses to tabulate statistics.

    PSAP allows participants to review and suggest modifications to the boundaries for block groups, census tracts, census county divisions (CCDs), and census designated places (CDPs). Additionally, tribal governments can review or propose changes for tribal statistical areas, which include: Tribal block groups (TBGs), tribal census tracts (TCTs), CDPs, tribal designated statistical areas (TDSAs), state designated tribal statistical areas (SDTSAs), state reservations,1 Alaska Native village statistical areas (ANVSAs), Oklahoma tribal statistical areas (OTSAs), and OTSA tribal subdivisions.

    1 State reservations are not statistical areas, but they are included in PSAP for administrative reasons.

    The PSAP geographies represent statistical units for the tabulation and dissemination of small area data from the decennial census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and other Census Bureau programs and surveys. While legal boundaries, such as cities and counties, allow the Census Bureau to publish data by those areas, local governments often need data for planning by smaller units. PSAP is a unique program initiated and executed by the Census Bureau to allow local and regional governments to break larger geographic areas into smaller units so that they can receive 2020 Census and ACS data by these smaller units and better plan local services. The Census Bureau uses the information collected in PSAP from participating governments and agencies to tabulate and disseminate small area data from the decennial census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and other Census Bureau programs and surveys. In addition, these statistical geographies and the data they provide serve as input to governing, allocating federal funding, and planning of capital expenditures and basic infrastructure investment at the tribal, state, and county levels.

    The 2020 Census PSAP occurs between March 2018 and October 2020 and has three primary components:

    1. PSAP Internal Review.

    2. PSAP Delineation.

    3. PSAP Verification.

    1. PSAP Internal Review

    Census Bureau staff performs an internal review of PSAP entities prior to the distribution of materials to PSAP participants. This internal review ensures each of the statistical areas meets the population, housing, and geographic criteria as defined by the program. During the internal review process, the Census Bureau reviews, revises, and updates a draft plan of these statistical areas. This geographic plan aims to help participants efficiently identify and prioritize areas that need to be reviewed and revised for their local areas.

    From March 2018 through May 2018, Census Bureau staff initially contacts the 2010 Census PSAP participants to solicit participation in the 2020 Census PSAP. If 2010 Census PSAP participants decline to participate in the 2020 Census PSAP, the Census Bureau will reach out and invite local or regional planning agencies (RPAs) that can cover relatively large areas. To obtain coverage nationwide, the Census Bureau works with federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native Regional Associations (ANRAs), local or regional planning agencies, and councils of government officials (COGs). The Census Bureau strongly recommends PSAP participants to seek input from other census data users and stakeholders regarding 2020 Census PSAP statistical area delineations. Participants reach out to local governments for additional inputs and coordinate the multiple interests and requests that arise. Local governments that are interested in participating may contact the participants covering their area. The Census Bureau will publish the contact information of the 2020 Census PSAP participants on the PSAP Web site. The Census Bureau will contact federally recognized tribes to solicit their participation in the 2020 Census PSAP. For state recognized tribes, the Census Bureau will invite state governors to designate or appoint a state tribal liaison for the 2020 Census PSAP. The Census Bureau will also contact State Data Centers to help build the 2020 Census PSAP invitation and communication lists.

    In July 2018, participants receive an official invitation package with a Contact Update Form that they fill out and return to the Census Bureau by mail. The Census Bureau then sends reminder packages to participants who do not respond in the time period mentioned on the Contact Update Form.

    2. PSAP Delineation

    In January 2019, the Census Bureau notifies program participants of the start of the delineation phase. The Census Bureau conducts the delineation phase of the 2020 Census PSAP boundaries using the web-based Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS), a customized geographic information system (GIS) based on an open-source platform. Participants can either download the materials and software online from the Census Bureau's Web site or have them shipped on DVDs. Participants have a maximum of 120 days from the date of receipt of materials to complete and submit statistical geography updates to the Census Bureau.

    3. PSAP Verification

    The verification phase starts January 2020 and allows participants to review the proposed edits from Census Bureau geographers. The Census Bureau sends a prepaid postcard to participants asking them to verify, accept, or reject the final version of the proposed plan, which is available online or by paper maps for tribal participants. Participants have 90 calendar days to review updates. Census Bureau staff contacts non-respondents through a follow-up mail-out and follow-up telephone calls. Once the Census Bureau receives the postcard with a participant's approval or acceptance of the final verification plan, the Census Bureau finalizes the 2020 statistical boundaries.

    Method of Collection: The Census Bureau offers two methods of collection for the 2020 Census PSAP:

    1. GUPS submission (electronic): The Census Bureau uses several formats to collect information and updates for statistical boundaries during the internal review, delineation, and verification phases. The Census Bureau collects updated contact information from participants who choose to participate in the program online, by email, and by telephone. The Census Bureau-provided software, GUPS, is the only method of response for state and local governments. However, tribal participants reviewing TBGs, TCTs, or CDPs may elect to use GUPS or Census Bureau provided paper map products to review and edit tribal statistical geographies.

    2. Paper map submission: Participants reviewing ANVSAs, OTSAs, OTSA tribal subdivisions, TDSAs, or SDTSAs are provided Census Bureau paper map products to review and edit tribal statistical areas.

    2020 Census PSAP Schedule Date Event March-May 2018 Contact 2010 Census PSAP participants to inquire about 2020 Census PSAP participation. July 2018 PSAP invitation materials sent to PSAP participants. January 2019 PSAP delineation phase begins. Participants have 120 calendar days to submit updates. February 2019 PSAP Webinar trainings begin. July 2019 Send PSAP participants communication notifying closeout of delineation phase. January 2020 PSAP verification phase begins. Participants have 90 calendar days to review updates.

    Affected Public: All federally or state recognized American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives in the United States, states, counties, local governments, and planning agencies.

    Frequency: PSAP occurs once per decade in order to support the Decennial Census, the American Community Survey, and other Census Bureau programs and surveys.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Section 6.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25644 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-73-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 39—Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Dallas Airmotive, Inc (Aircraft Engine Disassembly), DFW Airport, Texas

    Dallas Airmotive, Inc (DAI) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in DFW Airport, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on November 20, 2017.

    The DAI facility is located within Site 1 of FTZ 39. The facility is used for the disassembly of aircraft engines. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt DAI from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, DAI would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: AC generators; accumulators; linear actuators; valve and gear adapters; airflow control regulators; aluminum tubes and pipe fittings; fuel control arms; attenuators; autostart kits; auxiliary power units; rubber gearshaft baffles; mounting ball assemblies; aluminum ball floats; exhaust duct bands; roller bearing assemblies; ball bearings; roller bearings; cylindrical roller bearings; spherical roller bearings; bellcranks; metal bellows; turbofan and rotorcraft fan blades; insulation blankets; metal blocks for turbofans; nickel and steel bolts; container and engine brackets; fabric braids; plastic bumpers; plastic and metal bushing; bypass ducts; electric cables; steel cables; bearing cages; cam propeller controller engines; plastic and aluminum fuel caps; carbon face seal assemblies; oil seal carriers; turbofan and rotorcraft cases; turbofan chambers; chip detectors; signaling sensor chips; steel circlips; circuit breakers; steel clamps; clevis rod ends; sprag clutches; turbofan coils; turbofan pump collars; turbine module combusters; temperature compensators; turbine stator compressors; electrical conduits; turbofan cones; plug and field connectors; electrical contacts; universal torque, bleed valve and starting controls; ceramic fiber cords; steel cotter pins; turbofan and rotorcraft counter weights; magnesium and steel couplings; turbofan and rotorcraft covers; silicon and rubber cushions; torquemeter cylinders; steel vibration dampers; data collections units; paper, aluminum and steel decals; pump and gear deflectors; bagged, 8-unit dessicants; turbofan, valve and gear diaphragms; turbofan discs; steel dowels; dynamostarters; ejector pumps; tank assemblies; magnesium gear elbows; electronic engine controls; plastic envelopes; exciters; fairings; steel ferrules; filler caps; water and fuel filters; aluminum flanges; valve and automatic fuel controls; fuel pumps; fuel shut off cables; fuel/oil heat exchangers; oil tank gauges; silicone, rubber, paper, stone, asbestos, steel, copper, nickel, turbofan, valve and two-layer gaskets; gear; gearshafts; glow plugs; pin-valve guides; harness clips; heat shields; non-metallic hoses; turbofan, pump, gearbox and check valve housings; turbofan pump impellers; mechanical, humidity, oil level and electrical indicators; injectors; inner compressor modules; steel and nickel inserts; seal retaining plate insulation; thermocouple insulators; ITT indicators; ITT probes; steel keys; air pressure valves; rubber O-ring kits; fuel pump and filter seals parts kits; electrical leads; negative lead thermocouples; turbofan and overspeed control levers; turbofan and bleed valve liners; steel lock tabs; stainless steel locking nuts; logbooks; measurement interfaces; metering plugs; pushrod modification kits; heated P3 line modification kits; monitors; rubber, shipping container and vibration mounts; steel nipples; turbo and rotorcraft nozzles; steel, nickel and titanium nuts; oil coolers; turbofan orifices; overspeed governors; overtorque limiters; aluminum packing; turbofan pad assemblies; turbofan panels; oil filter replacement parts kits; filter parts kits; fuel filter replacement parts kits; steel, copper, nickel and aluminum pins; turbofan pipes; turbofan valve pistons; plastic, glass, steel, identification, pump, gear and thermocouple plates; shipping, metal, electrical, chip and collector plugs; plungers; potentiometers; power section modules; pressure transmitters; propeller governor controls; oil and fuel pumps; turbofan quadrants; steel turbofan receptacles; reducing unions; reduction gear boxes; oil level indicator reflectors; regulators; variable and fixed resistors; retainer turbofans; plastic, rubber, steel and nickel turbofan rings; steel, nickel and aluminum tubular rivets; plain bearing rod ends; steel, nickel, turbofan, pump and valve rods; roller bearings; turbo and rotorcraft rotors; turbine helicopter engines; pulse pick-up runners; scavenge pumps; oil scoops; turbofan pump and valve screens; steel, nickel and aluminum screws; silicon, rubber, textile, nickel, turbofan, valve, mechanical, oil and electrical motor seals; turbofan and valve seats; oil, rotational speed and option sensors; air-oil separators; turbofan and rotorcraft shafts; fuel nozzle sheaths; electrical connector shells; shield assemblies; aluminum, turbofan and rotorcraft shims; shipping container skid base assemblies; plastic, steel, turbofan, rotorcraft, valve, gear and insulated sleeves; slider blocks; steel snap rings; turbofan and rotorcraft spacers; speed sensors and probes; steel spindles; spinners; steel springs; starter generators; power turbine stators; bleed check valve stoppers; oil strainers; plastic and steel straps; felt and fiberglass strips; steel and nickel studs; sump accessory gearboxes; rotorcraft and turbofan supports; shock absorber suspenders; switch assemblies; swivel joint casings; tape with a width less than 20cm; insulating, electrical and rubber tape; steel and aluminum tees; temperature sensors; plastic plate templates; terminal assemblies; terminal boards; terminal lugs; thermal couplings; immersion and T6 thermocouples; tie rods; torque transducers; bearing tracks; train idlers; transducers; transformer liners; transmitters; turbofan traps; steel trunnions; plastic, steel and aluminum tubes; turbine stator assemblies; turbofan engines; turboshaft gas turbine A/C engine; vacuum capsules; pressure reducing, hydraulic, safety, solenoid and regulator valves; turbo and rotorcraft vanes; silicone, fabric, steel locking, steel, copper, nickel and aluminum washers; wheels; nickel wire; steel wire rope; wiring harnesses; wrapper assemblies; and, yokes (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 49.5¢/kg + 7.5%). DAI would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Turbojet aircraft engines; and, turbopropeller engines (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 2.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 8, 2018.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25651 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-185-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone 144—Brunswick, Georgia; Application for Subzone Orgill, Inc. Tifton, Georgia

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Brunswick and Glynn County Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 144, requesting subzone status for the facility of Orgill, Inc. (Orgill), located in Tifton, Georgia. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 22, 2017.

    The proposed subzone (50 acres) is located at 260 Jordan Road, Tifton, Georgia (Tift County). The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 144. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 8, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 22, 2018.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at [email protected] or (202) 482-5928.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25652 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-48-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 230—Piedmont Triad Area, North Carolina; Authorization of Production Activity Klaussner Home Furnishings (Upholstered Furniture) Asheboro and Candor, North Carolina

    On July 24, 2017, Klaussner Home Furnishings submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 230D, in Asheboro and Candor, North Carolina.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 37191-37192, August 9, 2017). On November 21, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and further subject to a restriction requiring that lithium ion batteries be admitted to the subzone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) or domestic status (19 CFR 146.43).

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25657 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-74-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 204—Tri-Cities Area, TN/VA; Notification of Proposed Production Activity Eastman Chemical Company (Acetic Anhydride and Acetic Acid) Kingsport, Tennessee

    The Tri-Cities Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 204, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman Chemical), located in Kingsport, Tennessee. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on November 21, 2017.

    The Eastman Chemical facility is located within Site 12 of FTZ 204. The facility is used for the separation via vacuum distillation of an imported blend of acetic anhydride and acetic acid. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Eastman Chemical from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status material/component noted below, Eastman Chemical would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to acetic acid and acetic anhydride (duty rate ranges from 1.8 to 3.5%). Eastman Chemical would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The component/material sourced from abroad is a blend of acetic anhydride and acetic acid (duty rate 5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 8, 2018.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25654 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-68-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 241—Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Marine Industries Association of South Florida (Yacht Repair/Refitting), Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    The City of Fort Lauderdale, grantee of FTZ 241, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of the Marine Industries Association of South Florida (MIASF), located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on November 17, 2017.

    MIASF's facilities are located within Subzone 241A. The facilities are used for yacht repair and refitting. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt MIASF from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production (estimated 95 percent of production). On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, MIASF would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to yachts, inflatable boats, boat tenders, and outboard motor tenders (duty-rate ranges from 1% to 2.4%). MIASF would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Diesel marine propulsion engines; fuel pumps; fuel coolers; oil pumps; oil coolers; fuel injectors; fuel injector pumps; heat exchangers for marine propulsion engines; fine mesh screen filters; cast iron cylinder liners; cylinder heads; pistons; piston rings; engine mounts; crank shafts; cam shafts; thrust bearings; linear bearings; seal kits; cylinder head gaskets; rubber hoses; aluminum piping; zinc anode kits; turbochargers; aluminum exhausts; rubber v-belts combined with textiles; air filters; thermostats; raw water pumps; valves; starters; alternators/generators; electric control boxes; sending units; sensors; instrument clusters; stainless steel propellers; brass propellers; stainless steel propeller shafts; brass propeller shafts; stainless steel couplings; brass spool pieces; stainless steel spool pieces; bushings for propeller shafts; gear boxes for propellers; gear box mounts; gear coolers; gear box pumps; shaft struts; strut bearings; heat exchangers for running gear; hydraulic valves; stainless steel sprayer rings for running gear; gear legs for bow thrusters; mounting hardware; hydraulic filters; power take offs for bow thrusters; electrical control heads for bow thrusters; marine steering systems; brass rudders; fiberglass rudders; stainless steel tie bars; rubber lined naval brass bearings; stainless steel quadrants; steel hydraulic fittings; rubber hydraulic hoses; hydraulic pumps; hydraulic rams; electrical power packs; marine stabilizers; hydraulic power packs; fins for stabilizers; gyroscopes; cabling; pulsation dampeners; marine generators; generator mounts; electrical wire windings; aluminum sound shields; fuel water separators; aluminum tank fittings; rubber gaskets; fresh water system; fresh water pumps; stainless steel water valves; copper water valves; freshwater maker units; hot water tanks; bath and sink taps/faucets; copper piping; lube oil systems; lubricating oil pumps; stainless steel flow control oil valves; fuel systems; fire control spray heads; fire and smoke detectors; ventilation systems; ceiling fans; wall fans; metal ducting; programmable logic controllers; dampeners; moisture eliminators; electrical systems; electrical wire-plastic covered copper; automatic circuit breakers; electric switches; surge suppressors; junction boxes and enclosures (electrical system); programmable logic controller modules; monitoring systems; lighting fixtures and lamp holders; light bulbs; compressors and pumps (air conditioning); copper evaporator coils; fan coil units and blowers; enclosures (shore power system); heat exchangers (air conditioning system); deck winches; captive winches; mast and exhaust stack outlets; hot tubs; swimming pools; aluminum booms; boom vang; aluminum masts; sails; aluminum spreaders; EC6 carbon rigging; aluminum solid rods; furlers; mandrels; yokes; bulb keels; fins for sailboats; stainless steel anchors; stainless steel chains for anchors; electric windlasses; stainless steel snubber hooks; life rafts; helm stations; double and single loudspeakers; davits; inflatable motorboats (tender); outboard motorboats (tender); spotlights; stainless steel fairleads; stainless steel bollards; stainless steel stanchions; synthetic fiber lifelines; inflatable water toys; water skies, surfboards and paddleboards; fuel spill kits; stainless steel tender chocks; boat dock fenders; safety equipment including life jackets and belts; stainless steel freeing port scuppers; outdoor cushions made of man-made fibers; awnings and canvas covers; helm screens; radars; control modules; automatic identification systems; global marine distress and safety systems; bridge computers; navigation software; vinyl helm or captain chairs; navigational charts; electronic components (navigational and radio aid); gyro compasses; satellite domes; communication domes; depth sounders; sonars; binoculars; wood laminate flooring; ceramic tile flooring; marble flooring; carpet flooring; textile and vinyl wall coverings; vinyl ceilings; refrigerators; microwave ovens; ovens and cooktops; toasters; water heaters; coffee makers; dishwashers; blinds; curtains; shades (window treatments); leather, polyester, polyurethane fabric, and PVC coated vinyl upholstery replacements; electric door closer; manual door hinges; self-enclosed saunas; elevators; dumb waiters; kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, and cabinetry hardware; wood veneers; desk and table lamp lighting; wall mounted lighting; soft furnishings including sofas, chairs, wood tables, wall units, bedroom sets, and mattresses; stainless steel cutlery; lead crystal glassware; glassware (other); bathroom and kitchen fixtures and fittings; toilets; marble countertops; bathtubs; shower enclosures; glass partitions; computer equipment racks; computers; programmable data communication processors; televisions; television lifts and enclosures; DVD players; digital movie and music storage; remote controls for electronics; digital media switches; IT switches; in room AV processors; infrared pick-ups; AC rack coolers; coaxial cabling; docking stations; video projectors; custom theater seating; sound installations; control pads; patch panels; grounding plates; aerial-antennas for radio reception; cell modules; lighting modules; mounting hardware; projector screens; internal and external communication telephone systems; cabling wire for telephone systems; steel sheets; aluminum sheets; aluminum profiles; carbon fiber sheets; glass reinforced plastic-fiberglass for repairs; epoxy fairing compound; polyurethane paint for yachts; enamel paint for yachts; and aliphatic hydrocarbon based anti-fouling paint (duty rate ranges from duty free to 22.5%).

    The request indicates that thrust, linear, and strut bearings; naval brass bearings; steel sheets; aluminum sheets; aluminum profiles, and wood laminate flooring are subject to antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders when imported from certain countries. The FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). The request also indicates that the following components will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on those components): Aluminum piping; rubber v-belts combined with textiles; gear box mounts; aluminum sound shields; aluminum tank fittings; aluminum booms; aluminum masts; aluminum spreaders; aluminum solid rods; synthetic fiber lifelines; awnings and canvas covers; carpet flooring; textile wall coverings; blinds; curtains; shades- window treatments; leather, polyester and polyurethane fabrics; PVC coated vinyl upholstery replacements; electric door closers; manual door hinges; kitchen, bedroom and bathroom cabinetry; cabinetry hardware; wood veneers; television lifts and enclosures; and, mounting hardware.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 8, 2018.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at [email protected] or (202) 482-5928.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25656 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-75-2017] Proposed Reestablishment and Expansion of Site—Foreign-Trade Zone 276 Kern County, California

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), an application has been submitted to the FTZ Board by Kern County, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 276, requesting to reestablish the zone adjacent to the Los Angeles/Long Beach U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The reestablished zone would be comprised of previously approved Site 2, which the application proposes to expand.

    FTZ 276 was initially approved on January 19, 2010, as a new zone adjacent to the Meadows Field user-fee airport (Board Order 1653, 75 FR 8920-8921, February 26, 2010). A user-fee airport may serve as a port of entry for purposes of establishing, operating and maintaining a FTZ pursuant to the FTZ Board's regulations (see 15 CFR 400.2(m)). The grantee now proposes to reestablish the zone as an additional zone adjacent to the Los Angeles/Long Beach U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The reestablished zone would be comprised of Site 2—within the Tejon Ranch Commerce Center, located at the intersection of Interstate 5 and Highway 99, Lebec, California—which the application proposes to expand from 247 to 1,093 acres.

    The application was formally docketed on November 21, 2017. The applicant is authorized to make the proposal under the California Government Code, Sections 6300-6305. The application indicates a need for expanded zone designation within the Tejon Ranch Commerce Center. Specific manufacturing approvals are not being sought at this time. Such requests would be made to the FTZ Board on a case-by-case basis.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 8, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 22, 2018.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at [email protected] or (202) 482-0862.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25655 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-135-2017] Approval of Subzone Status; Ekornes Inc.; Somerset, New Jersey

    On September 7, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the New Jersey Department of State, grantee of FTZ 44, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 44, on behalf of Ekornes Inc., in Somerset, New Jersey.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 42784, September 12, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 44J was approved on November 13, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 44's 407.5- acre activation limit.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25653 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-822-806, A-821-824, A-520-808] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Belarus, the Russian Federation, and the United Arab Emirates: Affirmative Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Finding of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Belarus, the Russian Federation (Russia), and the United Arab Emirates (the UAE) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The final estimated dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in in the “Final Determinations” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Applicable November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Janz at (202) 482-2972 (Belarus), Kaitlin Wojnar at (202) 482-3857 (Russia), Carrie Bethea (UAE) at (202) 482-1491, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 12, 2017, the Department published the preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances concerning Russia and the preliminary determinations of sales at LTFV in the investigations of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE.1 We invited interested parties to comment on these preliminary determinations. We received no comments on the Preliminary LTFV Determinations but did receive comments on the scope of these investigations. Additionally, no interested party requested a hearing.

    1See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Russian Federation and the United Arab Emirates: Affirmative Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances for Imports of Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Russian Federation, 82 FR at 42794 (September 12, 2017) (Preliminary LTFV Determinations Russia & UAE), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM); and Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 42796 (September 12, 2017) (Preliminary LTFV Determination Belarus), and accompanying PDM (collectively, Preliminary LTFV Determinations).

    Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE. For a complete description of the scope of the Belarus, Russia, and the UAE investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    During the course of these investigations, the Department received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the Preliminary LTFV Determinations, the Department issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum to address these comments. As a result of these comments, the Department made no changes to the scope of these investigations as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.2

    2 For discussion of these comments, see Memorandum, “Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination” (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum), dated August 7, 2017; see also Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 19207 (April 20, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    In September 2017, we received scope case and rebuttal briefs. On November 20, 2017, we issued the Final Scope Decision Memorandum in response to these comments in which we did not change the scope of these investigations.3

    3 For discussion of these comments, see Memorandum, “Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom: Final Scope Memorandum” (Final Scope Decision Memorandum), dated November 20, 2017.

    Period of Investigations

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, for Russia and the UAE. Because Belarus is a non-market economy (NME) country, the POI for that investigation is July 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    Verification

    Because the mandatory respondents in the Russian and UAE investigations did not provide the information requested, and the Department determined that Byelorussian Steel Works (BSW) was uncooperative, the Department did not conduct verifications under section 782(i)(1) of the Act.

    Analysis of Comments Received, Use of Adverse Facts Available, and Changes Since the Preliminary Determinations

    As noted above, we received no comments pertaining to the Preliminary LTFV Determinations.

    As stated in the Preliminary LTFV Determination Belarus, we found that BSW is not eligible for separate rate status because it is wholly-owned by the Government of Belarus. We also found in the Preliminary LTFV Determinations that the Belarus-wide entity, as well as the mandatory respondents in the investigations involving Russia and the UAE,4 withheld information that the Department requested and failed to provide information by the specified deadlines. This significantly impeded the proceedings, and accordingly, resulted in the Department relying on facts otherwise available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, we found that these respondents did not cooperate to the best of their abilities to comply with our requests for information, and, accordingly, we determined it appropriate to apply adverse inferences in selecting from the facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(a).5 For the purposes of the final determinations, we continue to find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)-(b) of the Act, application of facts otherwise available with adverse inferences is appropriate. Accordingly, the Department has made no changes to the Preliminary LTFV Determinations, and no decision memoranda accompany this Federal Register notice.

    4 Abinsk Electric Steel Works Ltd. (Abinsk) and JSC NLMK-Ural (NLMK Ural) (Russia), and Emirates Steel Industries PJSC (Emirates Steel) (UAE).

    5See Preliminary LTFV Determinations Russia and UAE, 82 FR at 42794, and accompanying PDM at 4-6; and Preliminary LTFV Determination Belarus, 82 FR at 42797, and accompanying PDM at 6-10.

    Final Affirmative Determinations of Critical Circumstances

    For Russia, in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with respect to mandatory respondents, Abinsk and NLMK Ural, and all other producers and exporters of wire rod from Russia (All Others).6 As stated above, the Department received no comments concerning the Preliminary LTFV Determinations. Thus, for these final determinations, we continue to find that, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, critical circumstances exist for imports from all producers and exporters of wire rod from Russia.

    6See Preliminary LTFV Determinations Russia and UAE, 82 FR at 42795.

    All-Others Rate

    As discussed in the Preliminary LTFV Determinations, the Department based the selection of the “All-Others” rates in Russia and the UAE, on the dumping margins alleged in the Petitions,7 in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. We made no changes to the selection of these rates for these final determinations.8

    7See the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the Republic of South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom, dated March 28, 2017 (the Petitions).

    8See Preliminary LTFV Determinations Russia and UAE, 82 FR at 42795.

    Final Determinations

    The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter or producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Belarus Belarus-Wide Entity 9 280.02 Russia Abinsk Electric Steel Works Ltd 756.93 JSC NLMK-Ural 756.93 All-Others 436.80 UAE Emirates Steel Industries PJSC 84.10 All-Others 84.10 9 The Belarus-wide entity includes BSW, the sole mandatory respondent in the investigation of wire rod from Belarus.
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, for these final determinations, we will direct U. S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of wire rod from Russia, as described in the Appendix to this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 14, 2017 (90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary LTFV Determinations), because we continue to find that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports from all producers and exporters of wire rod from Russia.

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for these final determinations, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of wire rod from Belarus and the UAE, as described in the Appendix to this notice, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 12, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations of the Belarus and UAE investigations in the Federal Register.

    With respect to entries from Belarus, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above.

    With respect to entries from Russia, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) For Abinsk and NLMK Ural, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 436.80 percent, as discussed in the “All-Others Rate” section, above.

    With respect to entries from the UAE, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) For Emirates Steel, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 84.10 percent, as discussed in the “All-Others Rate” section, above.

    These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    The estimated weighted-average dumping margins assigned to the mandatory respondents in these investigations in the Preliminary LTFV Determinations were based on adverse facts available. As we made no changes to these margins since the Preliminary LTFV Determinations, no disclosure of calculations is necessary for these final determinations.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination of sales at LTFV for Belarus, Russia, and the UAE and final affirmative determination of critical circumstances for Russia. Because the final determinations in these proceedings are affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE no later than 45 days after our final determination, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, these proceedings will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded or cancelled. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue antidumping duty orders directing CBP to assess upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    These determinations are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.1 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorous, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

    The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25659 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board or TTAB) will hold an open meeting via teleconference on Thursday, December 14, 2017. The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry. The purpose of the meeting is for Board members to consider recommendations being developed by the National Goal Subcommittee, the Secure Travel Partnership Operations Subcommittee, and the Secure Travel Partnership Communications Subcommittee. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Board at http://trade.gov/ttab at least one week in advance of the meeting.

    DATES:

    Thursday, December 14, 2017, 1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m. EST. The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EST on Thursday, December 7, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via conference call. The call-in number and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: National Travel and Tourism Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 10003, Washington, DC 20230 or by email to [email protected] Members of the public are encouraged to submit registration requests and written comments via email to ensure timely receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Beall, the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, National Travel and Tourism Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 10003, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-5634; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry.

    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. Any member of the public requesting to join the meeting is asked to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to grant. There will be fifteen (15) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public speaking time may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Members of the public wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting speaking time is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks by 5:00 p.m. EST on Thursday, December 7, 2017, for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to the members of the Board.

    In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Board's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Brian Beall at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Thursday, December 7, 2017, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered during the meeting. Copies of Board meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

    Dated: November 16, 2017. Brian Beall, Designated Federal Officer, United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25668 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 99-12A05] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION:

    Notice of Application To Amend the Export Trade Certificate of Review Issued to California Almond Export Association, LLC (“CAEA”), Application No. 99-12A05.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”) of the International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the amended Certificate should be issued.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) (“the Act”) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its application.

    Request for Public Comments

    Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.

    An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230.

    Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the amended Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 99-12A05.”

    Summary of the Application

    Applicant: CAEA, 4800 Sisk Road Modesto, CA 95356.

    Contact: Bill Morecraft, Senior Vice President, Blue Diamond Growers, Telephone: (916) 446-8537.

    Application No.: 99-12A05.

    Date Deemed Submitted: November 14, 2017.

    Proposed Amendment: CAEA seeks to amend its Certificate as follows:

    • Add Stewart & Jasper Marketing, Inc. as a Member

    CAEA's proposed amendment of its Certificate would result in the following Members list:

    Almonds California Pride, Inc., Caruthers, CA Baldwin-Minkler Farms, Orland, CA Blue Diamond Growers, Sacramento, CA Campos Brothers, Caruthers, CA Chico Nut Company, Chico, CA Del Rio Nut Company, Livingston, CA Fair Trade Corner, Inc., Chico, CA Fisher Nut Company, Modesto, CA Hilltop Ranch, Inc., Ballico, CA Hughson Nut, Inc., Hughson, CA Mariani Nut Company, Winters, CA Nutco, LLC d.b.a. Spycher Brothers, Turlock, CA P-R Farms, Inc., Clovis, CA Roche Brothers International Family Nut Co., Escalon, CA RPAC, LLC, Los Banos, CA South Valley Almond Company, LLC, Wasco, CA Stewart & Jasper Marketing, Inc., Newman, CA SunnyGem, LLC, Wasco, CA Western Nut Company, Chico, CA Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds, LLC, Los Angeles, CA Dated: November 22, 2017. Amanda Reynolds, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25695 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-469-818] Ripe Olives From Spain: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of ripe olives from Spain. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Application November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Kolberg, Lana Nigro, or Jennifer Shore, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1785, (202) 482-1779, (202) 482-2778, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 19, 2017.1 On August 30, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation to November 20, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Ripe Olives from Spain: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 33050 (July 19, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Ripe Olives from Spain: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 41210 (August 30, 2017).

    3See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Ripe Olives from Spain,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are ripe olives from Spain. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation.

    4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    5See Initiation Notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.6

    6See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    The Department notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act because information necessary for our analysis was not available on the record. For further information, see “Partial Use of Facts Available” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Alignment

    As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final countervailing duty (CVD) determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of Ripe Olives from Spain, based on a request made by the petitioner.7 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than April 3, 2018, unless postponed.

    7See Letter from the petitioner, “Request for Alignment of Final Determination,” dated November 16, 2017.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, the Department calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L.U. (Aceitunas Guadalquivir), Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.Coop.And. (Agro Sevilla), Angel Camacho Alimentación, S.L. (Camacho), that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. The Department calculated the all-others rate using a weighted-average of the estimated subsidy rates calculated for the individually examined respondents using each company's business proprietary data for the merchandise under consideration.8

    8 For a complete analysis of the data, please see the All-Others Calculation Memorandum dated concurrently with this notice.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    9 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L.U.: Coromar Inv., S.L., AG Explotaciones Agricolas, S.L.U., and Grupo Aceitunas Guadalquivir, S.L.

    10 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Angel Camacho Alimentación, S.L.: Grupo Angel Camacho Alimentacíon, Cuarterola S.L., and Cucanoche S.L.

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L.U.9 2.31 Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.Coop.And 2.47 Angel Camacho Alimentación, S.L.10 7.24 All-Others 4.47
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

    Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.11 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    11See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives.” The subject merchandise includes all colors of olives; all shapes and sizes of olives, whether pitted or not pitted, and whether whole, sliced, chopped, minced, wedged, broken, or otherwise reduced in size; all types of packaging, whether for consumer (retail) or institutional (food service) sale, and whether canned or packaged in glass, metal, plastic, multi-layered airtight containers (including pouches), or otherwise; and all manners of preparation and preservation, whether low acid or acidified, stuffed or not stuffed, with or without flavoring and/or saline solution, and including in ambient, refrigerated, or frozen conditions.

    Included are all ripe olives grown, processed in whole or in part, or packaged in Spain. Subject merchandise includes ripe olives that have been further processed in Spain or a third country, including but not limited to curing, fermenting, rinsing, oxidizing, pitting, slicing, chopping, segmenting, wedging, stuffing, packaging, or heat treating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in Spain.

    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Specialty olives 12 (including “Spanish-style,” “Sicilian-style,” and other similar olives) that have been processed by fermentation only, or by being cured in an alkaline solution for not longer than 12 hours and subsequently fermented; and (2) provisionally prepared olives unsuitable for immediate consumption (currently classifiable in subheading 0711.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)).

    12 Some of the major types of specialty olives and their curing methods are:

    • “Spanish-style” green olives. Spanish-style green olives have a mildly salty, slightly bitter taste, and are usually pitted and stuffed. This style of olive is primarily produced in Spain and can be made from various olive varieties. Most are stuffed with pimento; other popular stuffings are jalapeno, garlic, and cheese. The raw olives that are used to produce Spanish-style green olives are picked while they are unripe, after which they are submerged in an alkaline solution for typically less than a day to partially remove their bitterness, rinsed, and fermented in a strong salt brine, giving them their characteristic flavor.

    • “Sicilian-style” green olives. Sicilian-style olives are large, firm green olives with a natural bitter and savory flavor. This style of olive is produced in small quantities in the United States using a Sevillano variety of olive and harvested green with a firm texture. Sicilian-style olives are processed using a brine-cured method, and undergo a full fermentation in a salt and lactic acid brine for 4 to 9 months. These olives may be sold whole unpitted, pitted, or stuffed.

    • “Kalamata” olives: Kalamata olives are slightly curved in shape, tender in texture, and purple in color, and have a rich natural tangy and savory flavor. This style of olive is produced in Greece using a Kalamata variety olive. The olives are harvested after they are fully ripened on the tree, and typically use a brine-cured fermentation method over 4 to 9 months in a salt brine.

    • Other specialty olives in a full range of colors, sizes, and origins, typically fermented in a salt brine for 3 months or more.

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under subheadings 2005.70.0230, 2005.70.0260, 2005.70.0430, 2005.70.0460, 2005.70.5030, 2005.70.5060, 2005.70.6020, 2005.70.6030, 2005.70.6050, 2005.70.6060, 2005.70.6070, 2005.70.7000, 2005.70.7510, 2005.70.7515, 2005.70.7520, and 2005.70.7525 HTSUS. Subject merchandise may also be imported under subheadings 2005.70.0600, 2005.70.0800, 2005.70.1200, 2005.70.1600, 2005.70.1800, 2005.70.2300, 2005.70.2510, 2005.70.2520, 2005.70.2530, 2005.70.2540, 2005.70.2550, 2005.70.2560, 2005.70.9100, 2005.70.9300, and 2005.70.9700. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and US Customs purposes, they do not define the scope of the investigation; rather, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Subsidies Valuation VI. Partial Use of Facts Available VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Calculation of the All-Others Rate IX. ITC Notification X. Disclosure and Public Comment XI. Verification XII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-25660 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-891] Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Korea: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 31, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination1 of the antidumping duty investigation of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The Department is amending the Preliminary Determination of the investigation to correct a significant ministerial error.

    1See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 50386 (October 31, 2017) (Preliminary Determination); see also the petitioners' November 1, 2017 letter, “Petitioners' Ministerial Error Allegations Concerning POSCO” (Ministerial Error Allegation).

    DATES:

    Effective November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lingjun Wang, 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) 482-2316.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On October 31, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination of wire rod from Korea. On November 1, 2017, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Charter Steel (collectively, the petitioners) alleged that the Department made a significant ministerial error in the Preliminary Determination.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is wire rod from Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice.

    Significant Ministerial Error

    A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” A significant ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(g) as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in: (1) A change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination; or (2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or de minimis and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than de minimis or vice versa. Further, 19 CFR 351.224(e) provides that the Department “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination.”

    Ministerial Error Allegation

    The petitioners allege that the Department failed to convert the product matching control number (CONNUM)-specific per-unit import duty cost amounts that were denominated in Korean won to U.S. dollars when it granted POSCO a duty drawback adjustment to U.S. price.2 The petitioners also maintain that correcting this error results in an increase of more than five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin, thereby meeting the definition of “significant” pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1).3

    2See DOC October 24, 2014 Memorandum: “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination—POSCO,” and DOC October 24, 2014 Memorandum “Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for POSCO.”

    3See Ministerial Error Allegation.

    We agree with the petitioners' allegation. The CONNUM-specific per-unit duty cost amount that forms the basis of our duty-drawback adjustment was in Korean won.4 The Department inadvertently failed to convert CONNUM-specific per-unit duty cost amount to U.S. dollars when adjusting U.S. price in the margin calculation program.5 This error constitutes a ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).6 Moreover, correcting this ministerial error changes the margin from 10.09 percent to 40.80 percent, thereby making this error significant pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1).7

    4See POSCO August 23, 2017 Response to Supplemental Section D Questionnaire at SD-12 and Exhibit SD-10, and POSCO October 11, 2017 Response to Second Supplemental Section D Questionnaire at SD2-6 and Exhibit SD2-7.

    5See DOC October 24, 2017 Memorandum: “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination—POSCO” at 4, and DOC October 24, 2017 Memorandum: “Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for POSCO” at 5.

    6See DOC Memorandum: “Allegation and Analysis of Ministerial Error in the Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with this memorandum (Ministerial Error Analysis Memorandum).

    7See DOC Memorandum: “Amended Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for POSCO,” dated concurrently with this memorandum (Amended Preliminary Calculation Memorandum).

    Amended Preliminary Determination

    We are amending the preliminary determination of sales at less-than-fair-value for wire rod from Korea to reflect the correction of a ministerial error made in the margin calculation for POSCO. In addition, because the preliminary “All-Others” rate was based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for POSCO, we are also amending the “All-Others” rate. As a result of the correction of the ministerial error, the revised weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • POSCO 40.80 All-Others 40.80
    Amended Cash Deposits and Suspension of Liquidation

    The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised according to the rates established in this amended preliminary determination, in accordance with section 733(d) and (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.224. Because the rates are increasing from the Preliminary Determination, the amended cash deposit rates will be effective on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the amended preliminary determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224.

    This amended preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Gary Taverman Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.1 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorous, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

    The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25658 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before December 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by OMB Control No. 3038-0091.

    By email addressed to: [email protected] or

    By mail addressed to: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0062.”

    By mail addressed to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581;

    • By Hand Delivery/Courier to the same address; or

    • Through the Commission's Web site at http://comments.cftc.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed herein may be obtained by visiting http://RegInfo.gov.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the ICR will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren Bennett, Special Counsel, 202-418-5290, email: [email protected], Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0062.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Transactions (OMB Control No. 3038-0062). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Part 5 of the Commission's regulations under the CEA establishes rules applicable to retail foreign exchange dealers (“RFEDs”), futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), introducing brokers (“IBs”), commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”), and commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) engaged in the offer and sale of off-exchange forex contracts to retail customers. Specifically:

    Regulation 5.5 requires RFEDs, FCMs, and IBs to distribute risk disclosure statements to new retail forex customers.

    Regulation 5.6 requires RFEDs and FCMs to report any failures to maintain the minimum capital required by Commission regulations.

    Regulation 5.8 requires RFEDs and FCMs to calculate their total retail forex obligation.

    Regulation 5.10 requires RFEDs to maintain and preserve certain risk assessment documentation.

    Regulation 5.11(a)(1) requires RFEDs to submit certain risk assessment documentation to the Commission within 60 days of the effective date of their registration.

    Regulation 5.11(a)(2) requires RFEDs to submit certain financial documentation to the Commission within 105 calendar days of the end of each fiscal year. RFEDs must also submit additional information, if requested, regarding affiliates' financial impact on an RFED's organizational structure.

    Regulation 5.12(a) requires RFED applicants to submit a Form 1-FR-FCM concurrently with their registration application.

    Regulation 5.12(b) requires registered RFEDs to file a Form 1-FR-FCM on a monthly and annual basis.

    Regulation 5.12(g) states that, in the event that an RFED cannot file its Form 1-FR-FCM for any period within the time specified in Regulation 5.12(b), the RFED may file an application for an extension of time with its self-regulatory organization.

    Regulation 5.13(a) requires RFEDs and FCMs to provide monthly account statements to their customers.

    Regulation 5.13(b) requires RFEDs and FCMs to provide confirmation statements to their customers within one business day after the execution of any retail forex or forex option transaction.

    Regulation 5.14 requires RFEDs and FCMs to maintain current ledgers of each transaction affecting its asset, liability, income, expense and capital accounts.

    Regulation 5.18(g) requires each RFED, FCM, CPO, CTA, and IB subject to Part 5 to maintain a record of all communications received that give rise to possible violations of the Act, rules, regulations or orders thereunder related to their retail forex business.

    Regulation 5.18(i) requires each RFED and FCM to prepare and maintain on a quarterly basis a calculation of non-discretionary retail forex customer accounts open for any period of time during the quarter that were profitable, and the percentage of such accounts that were not profitable.

    Regulation 5.18(j) requires the CCO of each RFED and FCM to certify annually that the firm has in place processes to establish, maintain, review, modify and test policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Act, rules, regulations and orders thereunder.

    Regulation 5.19 requires each RFED, FCM, CPO, CTA, and IB subject to Part 5 to submit to the Commission copies of any dispositive or partially dispositive decision for which a notice of appeal has been filed in any material legal proceeding (1) to which the firm is a party to or to which its property or assets is subject with respect to retail forex transactions, or (2) instituted against any person who is a principal of the firm arising from conduct in such person's capacity as a principal of that firm.

    Regulation 5.20 requires RFEDs, FCMs and IBs to submit documentation requested pursuant to certain types of special calls by the Commission.

    Regulation 5.23 requires RFEDs, FCMs and IBs to notify the Commission regarding bulk transfers and bulk liquidations of customer accounts.

    The rules establish reporting and recordkeeping requirements that are necessary to implement the provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 1 regarding off-exchange transactions in foreign currency with members of the public. The rules are intended to promote customer protection by providing safeguards against irresponsible or fraudulent business practices.2

    1 Public Law 110-246, 122 Stat. 1651, 2189-220 (2008).

    2See Regulation of Off-Exchange Retail Foreign Exchange Transactions and Intermediaries, 75 FR 55410, 55416 (Sept. 10, 2010).

    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. On September 18, 2017, the Commission published in the Federal Register notice of the proposed extension of this information collection and provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed extension, 82 FR 43527. The Commission received no relevant comments.

    Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection to reflect the current number of affected registrants and revised burden estimates. Accordingly, the respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

    Number of Registrants: 169.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 777.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 131,259.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

    (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Dated: November 22, 2017. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25698 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0082, Whistleblower Provision AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the extension of a proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment. In August 2011, the Commission adopted a final rule, as required by Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), requiring the submission of whistleblower information to the Commission on the Forms TCR and WB-APP. This notice solicits comments on the proposed Information Collection Request (“ICR”) titled: Renewal for Whistleblower Provision; OMB Control Number 3038-0082.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control No. 3038-0082 by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, via its Comments Online process: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the ICR will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Ehrman, Director, Whistleblower Office, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-7650; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

    Title: The Whistleblower Provision of Section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act, OMB Control Number 3038-0082. This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: 17 CFR 165.3(a) requires the submission of information to the Commission on a Form TCR. The Form TCR, “Tip, Complaint, or Referral,” and the instructions thereto, are designed to capture basic identifying information about a complainant and elicit sufficient information to determine whether the conduct alleged suggests a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. 17 CFR 165.7(b)(1) requires the submission of information to the Commission on a Form WB-APP. The Form WB-APP, “Application for Award for Original Information Provided Pursuant to Section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act,” and the instructions thereto, are designed to elicit sufficient information to determine whether and to what extent a claimant qualifies for a whistleblower award.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be 0.5 hours per response.

    Respondents/affected entities: Individuals.

    Estimated number of respondents: 600 per year.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 300 hours.

    Frequency of collection: Once.

    (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Dated: November 17, 2017. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25704 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2017-0035] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is proposing to renew with change the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Consumer Response Intake Form”.

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before December 28, 2017 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link becomes active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “Information Collection Review,” under “Currently under review”, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected]. Please do not submit comments to this email box.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Consumer Response Intake Form.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0011.

    Type of Review: Extension with change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 387,500.

    Abstract: The Intake Form is designed to aid consumers in the submission of complaints, inquiries, and feedback and to help the Bureau fulfill its statutory requirements.1 Consumers (also referred to as “respondents”) will be able to complete and submit information through the Intake Form electronically on the Bureau 's Web site. Alternatively, respondents may request that the Bureau mail a paper copy of the Intake Form, and then mail or fax it back to the Bureau; or call to submit a complaint by telephone. The questions within the Intake Form prompt respondents for a description of, and key facts about, the complaint at issue, the desired resolution, contact and account information, information about the company they are submitting a complaint about, and previous action taken to attempt to resolve the complaint.

    1See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, Title X, sections 1013(b)(3), 1021(c)(2), and 1034, codified at 12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(3), 5511(c)(2), and 5534.

    Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on July 19, 2017, (82 FR 33070), Docket Number: CFPB-2017-0019. Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be reviewed by OMB as part of its review of this request. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25717 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2017-0036] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is proposing to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan for Consumer Complaint and Information Collection System (Testing and Feedback)”.

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before December 28, 2017 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link becomes active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “Information Collection Review,” under “Currently under review”, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected]. Please do not submit comments to this email box.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Generic Information Collection Plan for Consumer Complaint and Information Collection System (Testing and Feedback).

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0042.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 710,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 118,334.

    Abstract: Over the past several years, the Bureau has undertaken a variety of service delivery-focused activities contemplated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-2013 (Dodd-Frank Act). These activities, which include consumer complaint and inquiry processing, referral, and monitoring, involve several interrelated systems.1 The streamlined process of the generic clearance will continue to allow the Bureau to implement these systems efficiently, in line with the Bureau's commitment to continuous improvement of its delivery of services through iterative testing and feedback collection.

    1 These interrelated systems include secure, web-based portals that allow consumers, companies, and agencies to access complaints and an online “Tell Your Story” feature that allows consumers to share feedback about their experiences in the consumer financial marketplace.

    Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on July 19, 2017, (82 FR 33071), Docket Number: CFPB-2017-0022. Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be reviewed by OMB as part of its review of this request. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25716 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0144] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Charter School Facilities National Questionnaire AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0144. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 216-32, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Sathya Soumya, 202-260-0819.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Charter School Facilities National Questionnaire.

    OMB Control Number: 1855-0024.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 200.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 300.

    Abstract: The Charter School Program needs reliable data to understand the current facilities landscape for charter schools. The Charter Schools Program, through the National Charter School Resource Center, administers a questionnaire conducted by the Colorado League of Charter Schools to gather data on charter schools facilities. This data helps to assess the true facilities challenges of the charter schools and what actions ED and the SEAs must take to better financially support the facilities needs of quality charter schools.

    This survey can incite positive change, increase the involvement of state legislature to mitigate the financial issues of charter schools to obtain equitable facilities, and ensure charter schools receive an amount for facilities that is more commensurate with the amount provided for traditional public schools. CSOs in participating states have reported that the survey results have provided the charter school facilities discussion in their states credibility regarding the problems facing charter schools and have resulted in legislative and other gains in their state towards charter school facility equity. CSOs have also reported that the results allow them to continue to push the facilities discussion forward for future changes. ED would like to continue to use and administer this survey in additional states and compile the data from all states into a facilities database. ED plans to conduct this survey in approximately three to four states per year, depending on the size of the state and local resources of the CSO to support the survey. This database will provide comprehensive information about the facilities for charter schools and the issues that charter school face in trying to obtain adequate facilities. The League will produce a report and an analysis summarizing the findings per state. The attached survey currently represents about 90% of the questions that will be asked to each state. The survey will be customized to include state-specific questions.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25597 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0145] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; SEA and LEA Self-Assessment and Monitoring Protocol AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0145. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-32, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Patrick Carr, 202-708-8196.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: SEA and LEA Self-Assessment and Monitoring Protocol.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 60.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 16,800.

    Abstract: OSS administers Title I, Sections 1001-1004 (School Improvement); Title I, Part A (Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies); Title I, Part B (Enhanced Assessments Grants (EAG), and Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities); Title II, Part A (Supporting Effective Instruction); Title III, Part A (English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement); and School Improvement Grants (SIG). Annual fiscal reviews—annual phone or on-site conversations with a purposeful sample of SEA and LEA program directors and coordinators—help ensure that an SEA and its LEAs are making progress toward improving student achievement and the quality of instruction for all students and are ensuring requirements are met through the review of fiscal requirements to safeguard public funds from waste, fraud, and abuse. The information shared with the OSS also informs the selection and delivery of technical assistance to SEAs and aligns structures, processes, and routines so the OSS can regularly monitor the connection between grant administration and intended outcomes. Because grantees are monitored on a multiyear cycle, administration of this information collection, including the publication of fiscal review results, is necessary to enable the OSS to identify potential areas of noncompliance ahead of formal monitoring visits, decreasing the need for enforcement actions and minimizing burden for SEAs.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25649 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Charter Renewals: National Coal Council AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat of the General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the National Coal Council has been renewed for a two-year period. The Council will continue to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on a continuing basis regarding general policy matters relating to coal issues.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Matuszak at (202) 287-6915 or by email at: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Council members are chosen to assure a well-balanced representation from all sections of the country, all segments of the coal industry, including large and small companies, and commercial and residential consumers. The Council also has diverse members who represent interest outside the coal industry, including the environment, labor, research, and academia. Membership and representation of all interests will continue to be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and implementing regulations.

    The renewal of the Council has been deemed essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in conjunction with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The Council will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulations.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on November 20, 2017. Shena Kennerly, Acting Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25664 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Orders Issued Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act During October 2017 FE Docket Nos. UNITED ENERGY TRADING CANADA, ULC 17-126-NG CANNAT ENERGY INC 17-129-NG DTE ENERGY TRADING, INC 17-122-NG DIRECT ENERGY MARKETING INC 17-123-NG VERMONT GAS SYSTEMS, INC 17-127-NG CANADA IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED 17-124-NG GAZ METRO GNL, S.E.C 17-128-LNG AUX SABLE CANADA 17-133-NG ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION 17-132-NG ENBRIDGE GAS DISTRIBUTION INC 17-130-NG SUNCOR ENERGY MARKETING INC 17-131-NG PAA NATURAL GAS CANADA ULC 16-78-NG IRVING OILS TERMINALS OPERATIONS LLC 17-134-NG CITY OF PORTAL, INCORPORATED 17-121-NG EDF TRADING NORTH AMERICA, LLC 17-119-NG SEVEN STRATEGIC CONSULTING LLC 17-112-NG GREENFIELD ENERGY CENTRE LP 17-125-NG CONSTELLATION ENERGY GAS CHOICE, LLC 16-31-NG IRVING OIL COMMERCIAL GP AND IRVING OIL TERMINALS OPERATIONS LLC (formerly IRVING OIL COMMERCIAL GP AND IRVING OIL TERMINALS OPERATIONS INC.) 15-165-NG AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of orders.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during October 2017, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, to import and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), to amend long-term authority, and to vacate authority. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at http://energy.gov/fe/listing-doefe-authorizationsorders-issued-2017.

    They are also available for inspection and copying in the U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Division of Natural Gas Regulation, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The Docket Room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2017. Robert J. Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oil and Natural Gas (Acting). Appendix DOE/FE Orders Granting Import/Export Authorizations 4100 10/10/17 17-126-NG United Energy Trading Canada, ULC Order 4100 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 4101 10/10/17 17-129-NG Cannat Energy Inc Order 4101 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada, and vacating prior authorization. 4102 10/10/17 17-122-NG DTE Energy Trading, Inc Order 4102 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 4103 10/10/17 17-123-NG Direct Energy Marketing Inc Order 4103 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 4104 10/10/17 17-127-NG Vermont Gas Systems, Inc Order 4104 granting blanket authority to import natural gas from Canada. 4105 10/18/17 17-124-NG Canada Imperial Oil Limited Order 4105 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 4106 10/18/17 17-128-LNG Gaz Metro GNL, S.E.C Order 4106 granting blanket authority to import LNG from Canada by truck. 4107 10/18/17 17-133-NG Aux Sable Canada Order 4107 granting blanket authority to import natural gas from Canada. 4108 10/18/17 17-132-NG Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Order 4108 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 4109 10/18/17 17-130-NG Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc Order 4109 granting blanket authority to export natural gas to Canada. 4110 10/18/17 17-131-NG Suncor Energy Marketing Inc Order 4096 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 3858-A 10/18/17 16-78-NG PAA Natural Gas Canada ULC Order 3858-A vacating blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 4111 10/24/17 17-134-NG Irving Oil Terminals Operations LLC Order 4111 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada, and vacating prior authority. 4099 10/24/17 17-121-NG City of Portal, Incorporated Order 4099 granting blanket authority to import natural gas from Canada. 4112 10/27/17 17-119-NG EDF Trading North America, LLC Order 4112 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico, to import/export LNG from/to Canada/Mexico by truck, to export LNG to Canada/Mexico by vessel, and to import LNG from various international sources by vessel. 4113 10/27/17 17-112-NG Seven Strategic Consulting LLC Order 4113 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 4114 10/27/17 17-125-NG Greenfield Energy Centre LP Order 4114 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 3791-A 10/27/17 16-13-NG Constellation Energy Gas Choice, LLC Order 3791-A vacating blanket authority to import natural gas from Canada. 3765-A 10/27/17 15-165-NG Irving Commercial GP and Irving Oil Terminals Operations LLC (formerly Irving Commercial GP and Irving Oil Terminals Operations Inc.) Order 3765-A amending long-term authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25634 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-505-003.

    Applicants: South Central MCN LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: SCMCN Compliance Filing Docket No. ER16-505-00_to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5166.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-892-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-11-21_Calculations for SRIC and SREC Compliance Filing to be effective 2/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20171121-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-320-000.

    Applicants: South Central MCN LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: SCMCN Compliance Filing to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-321-000.

    Applicants: Exelon Generation Company, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Nuclear Operating Services Agreement Filing to be effective 11/30/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20171121-5040.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-322-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement between PNM and Navopache to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20171121-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-323-000.

    Applicants: Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Certificate of Concurrence, Nuclear Operating Services Agreement (NOSA) to be effective 11/30/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20171121-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-324-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised Service Agreement No. 3476, Queue Position No. R11/Z2-109/AC1-029 to be effective 10/23/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20171121-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-325-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA No. 3916; Queue No. Z2-020 to be effective 10/30/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20171121-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25626 Filed 11-27-17; 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: EC18-22-000.

    Applicants: CXA Sundevil Power I, Inc., CXA Sundevil Power II, Inc.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited and Confidential Treatment of CXA Sundevil Power I, Inc., et. al.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5167.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-17-000.

    Applicants: ORNI 39 LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator of ORNI 39 LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5044.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG18-18-000.

    Applicants: ORNI 41 LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator of ORNI 41 LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2253-014; ER10-3319-018; ER11-2370-006.

    Applicants: Astoria Energy LLC, Astoria Energy II LLC, Cambria CoGen Company.

    Description: Supplement to June 29, 2017 Joint MBR Triennial of Astoria Energy LLC, et al., and June 28, 2017 Triennial MBR Report of Cambria CoGen Company.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1436-012; ER10-2329-009; ER10-2740-011; ER10-2742-010; ER12-1260-011; ER13-1793-009; ER14-152-007.

    Applicants: Eagle Point Power Generation LLC, Elgin Energy Center, LLC, Hazle Spindle, LLC, Rocky Road Power, LLC, Stephentown Spindle, LLC, Tilton Energy LLC, Vineland Energy LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2017 Triennial Market-Based Rate Update Filing for the Northeast Region of the Rockland Sellers.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-262-001.

    Applicants: Uniper Global Commodities North America LLC.

    Description: Data Response to November 13, 2017 letter requesting additional information.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1346-003.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-11-20_SA 2911 LEPA-MISO External NRIS (J373) Compliance (3rd Sub) to be effective 4/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1817-004.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-11-20_Compliance filing of E-NRIS pro forma (4th) to be effective 4/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-933-001.

    Applicants: Exelon Generation Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance Filing of Exelon Generation Company, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-155-001.

    Applicants: EnPowered.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: EnPowered USA, Inc. Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/31/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-315-000.

    Applicants: Wildwood Lessee, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Wildwood Lessee, LLC MBR Application to be effective 12/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-316-000.

    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Interconnection Agreement with Woods Hill Solar, LLC to be effective 11/30/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-317-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Wholesale Market Participation Agreement SA No. 4846; Queue No. AC2-144 to be effective 11/4/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-318-000.

    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Dominion submits Compliance Filling per Opinion No. 555 in EL10-49-005 to be effective 10/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-319-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to Docket No. EL16-110 to be effective 10/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20171120-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/17.

    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: November 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25582 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-296-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Phibro Americas LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Phibro Americas 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 December 6, 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: November 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25578 Filed 11-27-17; 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: ER10-1585-010; ER10-1594-010; ER16-733-001; ER10-1617-010; ER16-1148-001; ER12-60-012; ER10-1632-012; ER10-1626-007; ER10-1628-010.

    Applicants: Alabama Electric Marketing, LLC, California Electric Marketing, LLC, LQA, LLC, New Mexico Electric Marketing, LLC, Tenaska Energía de Mexico, S. de R. L. d, Tenaska Power Management, LLC, Tenaska Power Services Co., Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P., Texas Electric Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 28, 2016 Updated Market Power Analysis of the Tenaska Northeast MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-295-001.

    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Refiling EKPC NITSA Under Correct Record ID to be effective 10/16/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-302-000.

    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Section 205 Requirements Depreciation Rates—Polk 2 Buildout to be effective 2/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5060.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-303-000.

    Applicants: South Jersey Energy ISO2, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancel market-based rate tariff to be effective 11/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-304-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: LGIA Sienna Solar Farm Project SA No. 199 to be effective 11/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5063.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-305-000.

    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Rate Schedule to be effective 10/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    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: November 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25590 Filed 11-27-17; 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: EC18-21-000.

    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: Application Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act to Acquire Assets of Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5006.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-16-000.

    Applicants: Red Dirt Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Red Dirt Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5139.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-234-005.

    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Tariff Records to Reflect CCR ARO Settlement to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2565-001.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment No. 1 to WAPA Lease for Hoover to Mead Transmission Lines to be effective 9/30/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-306-000.

    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TFO Tariff Interim Rate Revision to Conform with PUCT-Approved Rate to be effective 11/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-307-000.

    Applicants: AEP Oklahoma Transmission Company, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEPOTC-Wildhorse Wind Preliminary Development Agreement to be effective 11/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5026.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-308-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4827, Queue Position No. AC1-010 to be effective 10/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5030.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-309-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Bull Branch Solar LGIA Filing to be effective 11/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-310-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southern Power (Lacrosse Road Solar) LGIA Filing to be effective 11/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-311-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southern Power (Shellman Solar) LGIA Filing to be effective 11/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5037.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-312-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits Engineering and Construction Services Agreement SA No. 4798 to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-313-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OATT, Sch. 12-Appdx A re: RTEP Projects Approved by Board Oct. 2017 to be effective 2/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-314-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-11-17_Order 825 Price Formation Request change in Effective Date to be effective 7/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES18-9-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Application of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for an Order Authorizing the Issuance of Securities.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES18-10-000.

    Applicants: PJM Settlement, Inc.

    Description: Application of PJM Settlement, Inc. Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for an Order Authorizing Issuances of Securities and Approving Guaranty.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25579 Filed 11-27-17; 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: ER10-3297-011.

    Applicants: Powerex Corp.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status and Request for Confidential Treatment of Powerex Corp.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3417-013; ER11-2292-019; ER11-3942-018; ER11-2293-019; ER10-2917-018; ER11-2294-017; ER12-2447-017; ER13-1613-011 ER10-2918-019; ER10-2920-018; ER11-3941-016; ER10-2921-018; ER10-2922-018; ER13-1346-009; ER10-2966-018; ER11-2383-013; ER10-3178-010; ER12-161-018; ER12-2068-014; ER12-645-019; ER10-2460-014; ER10-2461-015; ER12-682-015; ER10-2463-014; ER11-2201-018; ER13-1139-017; ER13-17-012; ER14-25-014; ER14-2630-010; ER12-1311-014; ER10-2466-015; ER11-4029-014; ER10-2895-018; ER14-1964-009; ER16-287-004; ER13-2143-011; ER10-3167-010; ER13-203-010; ER17-482-003.

    Applicants: Alta Wind VIII, LLC, Bear Swamp Power Company LLC, BIF II Safe Harbor Holdings, LLC, BIF III Holtwood LLC, Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC, Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC, Black Bear SO, LLC, BREG Aggregator LLC, Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc., Brookfield Energy Marketing LP, Brookfield Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC, Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, Carr Street Generating Station, L.P., Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., Granite Reliable Power, LLC, Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, Hawks Nest Hydro LLC, Mesa Wind Power Corporation, Rumford Falls Hydro LLC, Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, Windstar Energy, LLC, Bishop Hill Energy LLC, Blue Sky East, LLC, California Ridge Wind Energy LLC, Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, Erie Wind, LLC, Evergreen Wind Power, LLC, Evergreen Wind Power III, LLC, Imperial Valley Solar 1, LLC, Niagara Wind Power, LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC, Regulus Solar, LLC, Stetson Holdings, LLC, Stetson Wind II, LLC, Vermont Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Brookfield Companies and TerraForm Companies.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5251.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1657-000.

    Applicants: Armstrong Power, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report—Informational Filing (EL16-79) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1658-000.

    Applicants: Calumet Energy Team, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report—Informational Report (EL16-80-000) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5217.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1659-000.

    Applicants: Northeastern Power Company.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report—Informational Filing (EL16-81-000) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5220.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1660-000.

    Applicants: Pleasants Energy, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report—Informational Filing (EL16-82-000) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5228.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1661-000.

    Applicants: Troy Energy, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report—Informational Filing (EL16-83-000) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5229.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1663-000.

    Applicants: Elwood Energy LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report—Informational Report (EL16-98-000) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-299-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4841; Queue No. AC2-136 (WMPA) to be effective 10/25/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5004.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-300-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Limited waiver request of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. under ER18-300.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5240.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-301-000.

    Applicants: Ormesa LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Petition for Approval of Initial Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 11/30/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5017.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    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: November 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25589 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-315-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Wildwood Lessee, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Wildwood Lessee, 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 December 11, 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: November 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25583 Filed 11-27-17; 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 Numbers: RP17-1082-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC.

    Description: 2017 Annual Penalty Revenue Credit Filing of Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 9/25/17.

    Accession Number: 20170925-5020.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-164-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Service Agreement—Mercuria 11-16-2017 to be effective 11/16/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5084.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-165-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Contract Extensions October 31 2017 to be effective 11/16/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-166-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (Pivotal 34691-15) to be effective 11/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-167-000.

    Applicants: Energy Corporation of America,Greylock Production, LLC.

    Description: Request for Temporary Waiver and Expedited Action of Energy Corporation of America, et al.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-397-001.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing DETI—Nonconforming Service Agreement Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5025.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-168-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (Virginia Natural 34695-15) to be effective 11/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-169-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—NJ Natural 910230 eff 11-17-2017 to be effective 11/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-170-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Spotlight Energy 911468 eff 11-17-2017 to be effective 11/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-171-000.

    Applicants: Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Elgin Energy Center Negotiated Rate Filing to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5062.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-172-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2017 Non-Conforming Service Agreement FT-1285—Rainbow to be effective 11/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-173-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Bayway Lateral Project In-Service Filing CP16-473 to be effective 12/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-174-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate Agreements—WRB to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-175-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Warranty of Title November 2017 to be effective 12/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20171117-5133.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    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: November 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25580 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-301-000] Ormesa 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 Ormesa 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 December 6, 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: November 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25581 Filed 11-27-17; 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: PR17-66-000.

    Applicants: Worsham-Steed Gas Storage, LLC.

    Description: Five Year Updated Market Power Assessment of Worsham-Steed Gas Storage, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/9/17.

    Accession Number: 201705095146.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-161-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (EOG 34687 to Tenaska 48776) to be effective11/16/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-162-000.

    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2018 HMRE Surcharge Filing to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-163-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: TETLP Nov2017 Cleanup—Remove Terminated Negotiated Rates to be effective 12/16/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20171116-5021.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25588 Filed 11-27-17; 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 Numbers: RP11-1591-000.

    Applicants: Golden Pass Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: 2017 Annual Report of Penalty Revenues and Costs of Golden Pass Pipeline.

    Filed Date: 11/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20171114-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1052-000.

    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Fuel Refund Report in Docket No. RP17-1052.

    Filed Date: 11/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20171114-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-158-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 111417 Negotiated Rates—St. Lawrence Gas Company, Inc. R-1640-23 to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20171114-5030.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-159-000.

    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing Annual Operational Flow Order Report 2017.

    Filed Date: 11/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20171114-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-160-000.

    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing Annual Report on Operational Transactions 2017.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171115-5026.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/17.

    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: November 15, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25587 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9971-09-Region 1] Proposed Cercla Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Rowayton Trading Company, Inc., Bridgeport Fire Site, Bridgeport, Connecticut AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of response costs under CERCLA Section 122(h) and 104(e), concerning the Bridgeport Fire Superfund Site in Bridgeport, Connecticut with the following settling party: Rowayton Trading Company, Inc. The settlement requires Rowayton Trading Company, Inc. to pay $50,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund, and, if timely paid, shall include no interest.

    For 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The United States will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted by December 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be addressed to Cynthia Lewis, Senior Enforcement Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OES04-3), Boston, MA 02109-3912 (Telephone No. 617-918-1889) and should refer to: In re: Grant Street Fire Superfund Site, U.S. EPA Docket No. CERCLA 01-2017-0026.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Cynthia Lewis, Senior Enforcement Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OES04-3), Boston, MA 02109-3912; (617) 918-1889; l[email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In this proposed administrative settlement for recovery of response costs under CERCLA Section 122(h)(1) and 104(e)(6), concerning the Bridgeport Fire Superfund Site in Bridgeport, Connecticut, requires settling party, Rowayton Trading Company, Inc. to pay $50,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund, and, if timely paid, shall include no interest. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, relating to the Site, and protection from contribution actions or claims as provided by Sections 113(f)(2) and 122(h)(4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(f)(2) and 9622(h)(4). The settlement has been approved by the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice.

    Dated: October 30, 2017. Bryan Olson, Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25707 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0439; FRL-9971-18-OW] Peer Review To Inform the Safe Drinking Water Act Decision Making on Perchlorate in Drinking Water AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final peer reviewer selection and public peer review meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public peer review meeting and the final list of expert peer review panelists assembled by EPA's contractor, Versar, Inc. Versar is conducting the external peer review of scientific materials contained in the report titled “Draft Report: Proposed Approaches to Inform the Derivation of a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perchlorate in Drinking Water” (draft MCLG Approaches Report).

    DATES:

    The public peer review meeting will be held on January 29 and 30, 2018. The meeting will be held from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., eastern time, on January 29, and from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., eastern time, on January 30. The registration deadline to attend the meeting in-person or via teleconference or to request to make a brief oral statement at the meeting is January 17, 2018. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions of how to register.

    ADDRESSES:

    The peer review meeting will be held at the Crystal City Marriott at Reagan National Airport, located at 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. The phone number for the teleconference line will be provided to registered observers prior to the meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions regarding logistics or registration for the public peer review meeting should be directed to Versar, Inc., at 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151 (ATTN: Tracey Cowen); by email: [email protected] (subject line: Perchlorate Peer Review); or by phone: (301) 304-3121 (ask for Tracey Cowen). For additional information concerning the draft MCLG Approaches Report, please contact Samuel Hernandez at the U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division (Mail Code 4607M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-1735; or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Registration Instructions

    To attend the peer review meeting as an observer, either in-person or via teleconference, register no later than January 17, 2018. You may register (1) by sending an email to [email protected] (subject line: Perchlorate Peer Review Registration) and include your name, title, affiliation, full address, email, and phone number; or (2) by calling Versar at (301) 304-3121 (ask for Tracey Cowen); or (3) by mailing Versar, Inc., at 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151 (ATTN: Tracey Cowen). Please indicate which day(s) you plan to attend the meeting and whether you plan to attend via teleconference or in-person. Space is limited, and registrations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. There will be a limited amount of time for oral statements from the public at the beginning of the peer review meeting on the first day. If you wish to make an oral statement during the meeting, you must notify Versar of your request to speak no later than January 17, 2018. Versar will notify speakers of specific time limits for their oral statements. Versar will accept requests to make oral statements on a first-come, first-served basis, and may limit the amount of time for each speaker as well as the number of speakers due to time constraints. Please be advised that public comments are subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act.

    II. Information on Draft Approaches To Inform the Derivation of a Perchlorate MCLG

    EPA announced the release of the draft MCLG Approaches Report for public comment on September 15, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR 43354); on October 12, 2017 (82 FR 47507), EPA announced a 21-day extension of the public comment period on the draft MCLG Approaches Report. The 66-day public comment period on the draft report ended on November 20, 2017. The draft report and public comments received during the comment period are publicly available at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0438). EPA will consider public comments and peer review recommendations in future revisions to the draft MCLG Approaches Report.

    III. Information on Final Peer Review Charge Questions

    EPA announced a request for public comments on the draft peer review charge questions on September 15, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR 43361). The 21-day public comment period on the draft charge questions ended on October 6, 2017. EPA considered public comments as it finalized the peer review charge questions. The final peer review charge questions are available through the docket at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0439).

    IV. Information About the Peer Reviewers

    Consistent with agency guidelines for the peer review of highly influential scientific assessments, EPA tasked its contractor, Versar, to assemble a panel of experts to evaluate the draft MCLG Approaches Report. Versar evaluated 12 candidates for the peer review panel and solicited public comments on an interim list of peer review panelists on September 15, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR 43361).

    After review and consideration of public comments and consultation with EPA's Scientific Integrity Official, Versar has selected eight peer reviewers, who will, collectively, best provide expertise spanning the previously mentioned areas of knowledge and experience and, to the extent feasible, best provide a balance of perspectives. The final list of eight selected expert peer reviewers is provided as follows:

    Name of Nominee, Degree, Place of Employment 1. Hugh A. Barton, Ph.D., Pfizer, Inc. 2. Nancy Carrasco, M.D., Yale School of Medicine 3. Jonathan Chevrier, Ph.D., McGill University Faculty of Medicine 4. Claude Emond, Ph.D., University of Montreal 5. Dale Hattis, Ph.D., George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University 6. Angela M. Leung, M.D., M.Sc., UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine 7. Stephen M. Roberts, Ph.D., University of Florida 8. Joanne F. Rovet, Ph.D., The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto) EPA requests that no individual or organization contact in any way Versar or the peer review panel members regarding the subject of the peer review meeting, send them written materials regarding the subject of the meeting, or make any offers or requests to any of them that appear to be linked to their participation in the peer review. Versar will direct the peer review panel members to report any such contacts to Versar, Inc., who will take appropriate action in consultation with EPA to ensure the independence and impartiality of the peer review. V. Information About the Peer Review Meeting

    Versar, Inc., has charged the peer review panelists with evaluating and preparing written comments on the draft MCLG Approaches Report. Specifically, reviewers will provide general comments, their overall impressions of the document, and responses to charge questions. Reviewers will also consider the appropriateness of the quality, accuracy, and relevance of the data in the document. Prior to the meeting, Versar will provide copies of the public comments submitted to EPA's public docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0438) on the draft MCLG Approaches Report to the peer review panelists for their consideration.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25714 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0754] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (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 January 29, 2018. 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: 3060-0754.

    Title: Form Number: FCC Form 2100, Schedule H.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,176 respondents; 8,704 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 12 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Quarterly reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 154(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 104,448 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $5,222,400.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: Commercial full-power and Class A television broadcast stations are required to file FCC Form 2100, Schedule H (Formerly FCC Form 398) (Children's Television Programming Report) each calendar quarter. FCC Form 2100, Schedule H is a standardized form that:

    (a) Provides a consistent format for reporting the children's educational television programming aired by licensees to meet their obligation under the Children's Television Act of 1990 (CTA), and

    (b) facilitates efforts by the public and the FCC to monitor compliance with the CTA.

    Commercial full-power and Class A television stations are required to complete FCC Form 2100, Schedule H each calendar quarter and file the form with the Commission. The Commission places the form in the station's online public inspection file maintained on the Commission's database (www.fcc.gov). Stations use FCC Form 2100, Schedule H to report, among other things, the core children's educational and informational programs the station aired the previous calendar quarter and the core programs they plan to air in the upcoming calendar quarter. FCC Form 2100, Schedule H also includes a “Preemption Report” that must be completed for each core program that was preempted during the quarter. This “Preemption Report” requests information on the date of each preemption, the reason for the preemption and, if the program was rescheduled, the date and time the program was re-aired.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25609 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0120] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (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 January 29, 2018. 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: 3060-0120.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Title: Broadcast EEO Program Model Report, FCC Form 396-A.

    Form Number: FCC Form 396-A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,000 respondents; 5,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,000 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Model Program Report, FCC Form 396-A, is filed in conjunction with applicants seeking authority to construct a new broadcast station, to obtain assignment of construction permit or license and/or seeking authority to acquire control of an entity holding construction permit or license. This program is designed to assist the applicant in establishing an effective EEO program for its station.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25678 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0573] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget 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) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 Commission 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 28, 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 listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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: 3060-0573.

    Title: Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise, FCC Form 394.

    Form Number: FCC Form 394.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business of other for-profit entities; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,000 respondents; 1,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Third Party Disclosure Requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 7,000 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $750,000.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: FCC Form 394 is a standardized form that is completed by cable operators in connection with the assignment and transfer of control of cable television systems. On July 23, 1993, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92-264, FCC 93-332, Implementation of Sections 11 and 13 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Horizontal and Vertical Ownership Limits, Cross-Ownership Limitations and Anti-Trafficking Provisions. Among other things, this Report and Order established procedures for use of the FCC Form 394.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25610 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0678] Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision of a currently approved public information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0678.

    OMB Approval Date: November 7, 2017.

    OMB Expiration Date: November 30, 2020.

    Title: FCC Form 312, Application for Satellite Space and Earth Station Authorizations, Exhibit.

    Form Number: FCC Form 312; Schedule A; Schedule B; Schedule S; FCC Form 312-EZ; FCC Form 312-R.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,924 respondents; 4,981 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours to 80 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, one time, and annual reporting requirements; third party disclosure requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605 and 721.

    Total Annual Burden: 34,140 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: 10,625,120.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information. Certain information collected regarding international coordination of satellite systems is not routinely available for public inspection pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 47 CFR 0.457(d)(vii).

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a revision of the information collection titled “Part 25 of the Federal Communications Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage By, Commercial Earth Stations and Space Stations” under OMB Control No. 3060-0678, as a result of a recent rulemaking discussed below.

    On April 25, 2017, the Commission released a Third Report and Order in IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 17-49, titled “Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for the Satellite Services Operating Bi-directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band.” In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules requiring applicants for new licenses for Digital Broadcasting Satellite Service (DBS) feeder-link earth stations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to file with the Commission coordination agreements with affected Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) licensees prior to licensing, and to provide technical information on their proposed feeder-link earth stations to a third-party coordinator to facilitate the coordination process (see 47 CFR 25.203(m)). The changes adopted in the Report and Order will result in a net annualized increase of 41 burden hours to applicants and licensees under Part 25. This submission amends the previous submission to the OMB of July 1, 2014, to reflect these changes.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25677 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1053] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 29, 2018. 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 contact listed 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:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1053.

    Title: Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling; Two-Line Captioned Telephone Order; IP CTS Declaratory Ruling; and IP CTS Reform Order, CG Docket Nos. 13-24 and 03-123.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 60,010 respondents; 180,012 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours (15 minutes) to 8 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual, every five years, monthly, and ongoing reporting requirements; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for the information collection requirements is found at Sec. 225 [47 U.S.C. 225] Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired Individuals; The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA), Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69, was enacted on July 26, 1990.

    Total Annual Burden: 105,088 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information by the FCC from individuals.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: On August 1, 2003, the Commission released Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory Ruling, 68 FR 55898, September 28, 2003, clarifying that one-line captioned telephone voice carry over (VCO) service is a type of telecommunications relay service (TRS) and that eligible providers of such services are eligible to recover their costs from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) in accordance with section 225 of the Communications Act.

    On July 19, 2005, the Commission released Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 70 FR 54294, September 14, 2005, clarifying that two-line captioned telephone VCO service, like one-line captioned telephone VCO service, is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Fund.

    On January 11, 2007, the Commission released Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling, 72 FR 6960, February 14, 2007, granting a request for clarification that Internet Protocol (IP) captioned telephone relay service (IP CTS) is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Fund.

    On August 26, 2013, the Commission issued Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 13-24 and 03-123, Report and Order, 78 FR 53684, August 30, 2013, to regulate practices relating to the marketing of IP CTS, impose certain requirements for the provision of this service, and mandate registration and certification of IP CTS users.

    This notice and request for comments pertains to the extension of the currently approved information collection requirements for one-line and two-line captioned telephone service (CTS) and Internet Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS) rules and update the estimates of existing burdens that were included in the January 2015 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25675 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [CC Docket No. 92-237; DA 17-1123] Next Meeting of the North American Numbering Council AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission released a public notice announcing the meeting and agenda of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The primary agenda of this meeting will be to introduce members of the Committees, set out initial assignments, and provide more information about the Working Groups. The NANC will also begin discussing how to modernize and foster more efficient number administration in the United States. The agenda may be modified at the discretion of the NANC Chair and the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). The NANC meeting is open to the public. The FCC will accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will also provide audio coverage of the meeting. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Request for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer and governmental Affairs Bureau @(202) 418-0530 (voice) (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please allow at least five days advance notice for accommodation requests; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate. Members of the public may submit comments to the NANC in the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, ECFS, at www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Comments to the NANC should be filed in CC Docket No. 92-237.

    More information about the NANC is available at https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/general/north-american-numbering-council.

    DATES:

    Thursday, December 7, 2017, 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests to make an oral statement or provide written comments to the NANC should be sent to Carmell Weathers, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-C162, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marilyn Jones, NANC DFO, at [email protected], or (202) 418-2357, Michelle Sclater, Alternate DFO, at [email protected], or (202) 418-0388; or Carmell Weathers, Special Assistant to the DFO, at [email protected], or (202) 418-2325. The fax number is: (202) 418-1413. The TTY number is: (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document in CC Docket No. 92-237, DA 17-1123 released November 20, 2017. The complete text in this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the Internet at http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marilyn Jones, Senior Counsel for Number Administration, Wireline Competition Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25633 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (OMB No. 3064-0177) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collection described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Jennifer Jones (202-898-6768), Counsel, MB-3105, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Jones, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal To Renew the Following Currently Approved Collections of Information

    1. Title: Conservator or Receiver of Financial Assets Transferred by an Insured Depository Institution in Connection With a Securitization or Participation After September 30, 2010.

    OMB Number: 3064-0177.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: Insured Depository Institutions.

    Burden Estimate:

    Summary of Annual Burden and Internal Cost [3064-0177] Type of burden Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • responses
  • (average
  • number of
  • transactions)
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • Estimated
  • frequency
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • Disclosures: 360.6(b)(2)(i)(A), (D) Ongoing Private Transactions Non Reg AB Compliant Disclosure 19 1.895 37 12.0 Monthly 15,984 360.6(b)(2)(i)(D) Disclosure 35 1.971 3 1.0 On Occasion 207 360.6(b)(2)(ii)(B) Initial/One-Time Disclosure 1 6.000 1 1.0 On Occasion 6 360.6(b)(2)(ii)(C ) Disclosure 1 6.000 1 1.0 On Occasion 6 Total Disclosure Burden 16,203 Recordkeeping: 360.6(c)(7) Recordkeeping 35 1.971 1 1.0 On Occasion 69 Total Recordkeeping Burden 69 Total Burden 16,272
    Summary of Capital/Start-Up Costs [3064-0177] 360.6(b)(2)(i)(A), (B)—Initial/One-Time—Capital/Start-Up Costs—# of sponsors that have never done a registered transaction
  • in particular asset class since November 23, 2016—
  • effective date for compliance with new Reg AB—and prior to
  • doing a private transaction
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • hours per
  • respondent
  • [(a + b) * c]
  • Total start
  • up hours
  • Cost per hour Total cost of
  • annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (Internal)
  • Private Transactions—Auto Disclosure 1 2,760 2,760 $250 $690,000 Private Transactions—CMBS Disclosure 17 3,040 51,680 250 $12,920,000 Private Transactions—RMBS * Disclosure 1 5,400 5,400 250 $1,350,000 Total $14,960,000 (a) Existing systems and procedures for each required data point for all three asset classes = 10 # of respondents 19 (b) The number of hours required to adjust systems to provide asset level data in XML format for each required data point = 10 cost/respondent $787,368.42 (c) Estimated number of data points (per SEC Reg AB Rule PRA) = for auto 138, for CMBS 152, for RMBS 270 * For RMBS transactions, the sponsors will also incur an external cost in connection with securing a third-party due diligence report on compliance with 360.6(b)(2)(ii)(B). This cost is estimated to be $500,000 per transaction.

    General Description of Collection: To facilitate better ongoing evaluation of the quality of lending by banks and to reduce risks to the Deposit Insurance Fund from the opaque securitization structures and the poorly underwritten loans that led to the onset of the recent financial crisis, insured depository institutions must require compliance with certain disclosure and other requirements (including compliance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation AB) for securitizations (other than grandfathered transactions) as a prerequisite for the transfer of financial assets by an insured depository institution in connection with a securitization transaction to be eligible for the benefits provided by Part 360.6 of the FDIC's Regulations. Requirements for safe harbor treatment of loan participations are also set forth.

    There is no change to the FDIC's Part 360.6. The change in hourly burden and initial start-up costs are mostly attributed to the SEC's changes to Regulation AB in its September 24, 2014 final rule.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of November 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25638 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected].

    Agreement No.: 012301-004.

    Title: Siem Car Carrier AS/Volkswagen Konzernlogistik GmBH & Co. OHG Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Siem Car Carrier AS and Volkswagen Konzernlogistik GmBH & Co. OHG.

    Filing Party: Ashley W. Craig, Esq.; Venable LLP; 600 Massachusetts Ave. NW.; Washington, DC 20001.

    Synopsis: The amendment removes limits on the quantity of charter space that may be used by either Party on an ad-hoc basis on vessels owned or chartered by the other Party.

    Dated: November 22, 2017.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25699 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10661] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number __, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10661 Limit on Federal Financial Participation for Durable Medical Equipment in Medicaid

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Limit on Federal Financial Participation for Durable Medical Equipment in Medicaid; Use: Section 1903(i)(27) of the Social Security Act prohibits federal Medicaid reimbursement to states for certain durable medical equipment (DME) expenditures that are, in the aggregate, in excess of what Medicare would have paid for such items. To comply with the statute, each state must demonstrate that it is not spending in excess of what Medicare would have paid for the relevant DME items. We would require the minimal amount of information be collected from states to comply with this statute (at 8 hours per state per year). More specifically, we would ask states to demonstrate compliance by filling in their DME fee schedules onto the new spreadsheet page with the relevant information—HCPCS code series A, K, and E only, that are relevant to this information collection of durable medical equipment. Form Number: CMS-10661 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 56; Total Annual Responses: 56; Total Annual Hours: 448. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Richard Kimball at 410-786-2278.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25621 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-R-185, CMS-437 and CMS-10515] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by December 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected].

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Granting and Withdrawal of Deeming Authority to Private Nonprofit Accreditation Organizations and CLIA Exemption Under State Laboratory Programs; Use: The information required is necessary to determine whether a private accreditation organization/State licensure program standards and accreditation/licensure process is at least equal to or more stringent than those of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). If an accreditation organization is approved, the laboratories that it accredits are “deemed” to meet the CLIA requirements based on this accreditation. Similarly, if a State licensure program is determined to have requirements that are equal to or more stringent than those of CLIA, its laboratories are considered to be exempt from CLIA certification and requirements. The information collected will be used by HHS to: Determine comparability/equivalency of the accreditation organization standards and policies or State licensure program standards and policies to those of the CLIA program; to ensure the continued comparability/equivalency of the standards; and to fulfill certain statutory reporting requirements. Form Number: CMS-R-185 (OMB control number: 0938-0686); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector—Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 9; Total Annual Responses: 9; Total Annual Hours: 5,464. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Arlene Lopez at 410-786-6782.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement with Change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Psychiatric Unit Criteria Work Sheet; Use: Certain specialty hospitals and hospital specialty distinct-part units may be excluded from the Inpatient Medicare Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and be paid at a different rate. These specialty hospitals and distinct-part units of hospitals include Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs) units, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs) hospitals and Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities (IPFs).

    CMS regulations at 42 CFR 412.20 through 412.29 describe the criteria under which these specialty hospitals and specialty distinct-part hospital units are excluded from the IPPS. Form CMS-437 is used by Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities (IPFs) to attest to meeting the necessary requirements that make them exempt for receiving payment from Medicare under the IPPS. These IPFs must use CMS-437 to attest that they meet the requirements for IPPS exempt status prior to being placed into excluded status. The IPFs must re-attest to meeting the exclusion criteria annually. Form Number: CMS-437 (OMB control number: 0938-0358); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector—Business or other for-profits; Number of Respondents: 1,616; Total Annual Responses: 1,616; Total Annual Hours: 1,212. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Caroline Gallaher at 410-786-8705.)

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Payment Collections Operations Contingency Plan; Use: Under sections 1401, 1411, and 1412 of the Affordable Care Act and 45 CFR part 155 subpart D, an Exchange makes an advance determination of tax credit eligibility for individuals who enroll in QHP coverage through the Exchange and seek financial assistance. Using information available at the time of enrollment, the Exchange determines whether the individual meets the income and other requirements for advance payments and the amount of the advance payments that can be used to pay premiums. Advance payments are made periodically under section 1412 of the Affordable Care Act to the issuer of the QHP in which the individual enrolls. Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act provides for the reduction of cost sharing for certain individuals enrolled in a QHP through an Exchange, and section 1412 of the Affordable Care Act provides for the advance payment of these reductions to issuers. The statute directs issuers to reduce cost sharing for essential health benefits for individuals with household incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the Federal poverty level (FPL) who are enrolled in a silver level QHP through an individual market Exchange and are eligible for advance payments of the premium tax credit. The data collection will be used by HHS to make payments or collect charges from issuers under the following programs: advance payments of the premium tax credit, advanced cost-sharing reductions, and Marketplace user fees. The template will be used to make payments in January 2014 and for a number of months thereafter, as may be required based on HHS's operational progress. Form Number: CMS-10515 (OMB control number: 0938-1217); Frequency: Monthly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 575; Total Annual Responses: 7,475; Total Annual Hours: 51,175. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Jaya Ghildiyal at 301-492-5149).

    Dated: November 21, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25612 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-0533 and FDA-2016-E-0534] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RAPIVAB AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for RAPIVAB and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by January 29, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by May 29, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of January 29, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-0533 and FDA-2016-E-0534 for ”Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RAPIVAB.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with § 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product RAPIVAB (peramivir). RAPIVAB is indicated for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in patients 18 years and older who have been symptomatic for no more than two days. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for RAPIVAB (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,503,745 and 6,562,861) from BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated April 29, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of RAPIVAB represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for RAPIVAB is 3,287 days. Of this time, 2,925 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 362 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: December 21, 2005. FDA has verified the BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. claims that December 21, 2005, is the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December 23, 2013. FDA has verified the applicant's claims that the new drug application (NDA) for RAPIVAB (NDA 206426) was initially submitted on December 23, 2013.

    3. The date the application was approved: December 19, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 206426 was approved on December 19, 2014.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,824 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25676 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0001] Weighing the Evidence: Variant Classification and Interpretation in Precision Oncology; Public Workshop AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Weighing the Evidence: Variant Classification and Interpretation in Precision Oncology.” The purpose of the public workshop is to engage stakeholders and solicit input from experts in oncology precision medicine on how to best weigh and evaluate evidence for classification and interpretation of sequencing results for precision oncology.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on January 29, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and information.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503 (the Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hisani Madison, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5547, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6581, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The goal of precision oncology is to use a cancer patient's genetic data to help determine which therapeutic(s) might be most effective in treating their disease. Next generation sequencing is increasingly employed in oncology because the technology can be used to screen a large number of mutations simultaneously to optimize and personalize patient care. The increasing number of reported mutations may lead to uncertainty for clinicians in the interpretation and prioritization of the variants with respect to the clinical significance and optimal course of action, respectively.

    In January 2017, the Association for Molecular Pathology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the College of American Pathologists published a joint consensus recommendation for standards and guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of sequence variants in cancer. However, the implementation of these recommendations is not consistently applied across all stakeholders. FDA is holding this public workshop to engage stakeholders and solicit input from internal and external experts in precision oncology to discuss how genetic sequencing data is best implemented in patient management so that innovative regulatory strategies can be advanced to support the development of safe and effective precision-based drugs and devices for marketing.

    II. Topics for Discussion

    Topics for discussion at the public workshop include:

    • An overview of the state of the science for sequence variant classification in oncology and its practical use in treating patients;

    • The level of evidence required for reporting variants and/or guiding patient treatment;

    • Best practices for the use of public/private databases for variant classification and interpretation in oncology; and

    • Future directions for data sharing, standardization, and establishing consistency in precision oncology.

    The workshop will include a series of brief presentations to provide information to frame the main topics and interactive discussions via several panel sessions. Following the presentations, there will be a moderated discussion where speakers and additional panelists may be asked to provide their individual perspectives.

    III. Participating in the Public Workshop

    Registration: To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list.) Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, and telephone.

    Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register by January 19, 2018, by 4 p.m. Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 8 a.m. We will let registrants know if registration closes before the day of the public workshop.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Peggy Roney, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5231, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5671, email: [email protected] no later than January 10, 2018.

    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will also be webcast. The webcast link will be available on the registration Web page after January 10, 2018. Organizations are requested to view using one connection per location.

    If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit https://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. FDA has verified the Web site addresses in this document, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the public workshop is available, it will be accessible at https://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A link to the transcript will also be available on the internet at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list.).

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25584 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-E-2374] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; YONDELIS AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for YONDELIS and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by January 29, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by May 29, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of January 29, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-E-2374 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; YONDELIS.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with § 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product YONDELIS (trabectedin). YONDELIS is indicated for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma who received a prior anthracycline-containing regimen. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for YONDELIS (U.S. Patent No. 7,420,051) from Pharma Mar, S.A., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated August 25, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of YONDELIS represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for YONDELIS is 7,107 days. Of this time, 6,773 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 334 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: May 10, 1996. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on May 10, 1996.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: November 24, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for YONDELIS (NDA 207953) was initially submitted on November 24, 2014.

    3. The date the application was approved: October 23, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 207953 was approved on October 23, 2015.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,471 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25683 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0384] Pediatric Information for X-Ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Pediatric Information for X-ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications.” This guidance document outlines FDA's current thinking on information that should be provided in premarket notification submissions for x-ray imaging devices that are indicated for pediatric populations or general use x-ray imaging devices for which considerable pediatric application is anticipated. FDA intends for this guidance to minimize uncertainty during the premarket review process of premarket notification submissions for x-ray imaging devices for pediatric use to encourage the inclusion of pediatric indications for use for x-ray imaging device premarket notification submissions and to provide recommendations on information to support such indications. Both new devices and modifications of existing x-ray imaging devices that require submission of a new premarket notification are included within the scope of this guidance document, regardless of whether the device is a complete x-ray imaging system, a component part of an x-ray imaging device, or an accessory (e.g., detectors and software).

    DATES:

    The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0384 for “Pediatric Information for X-ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled “Pediatric Information for X-ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laurel Burk, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4268, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5933.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    This guidance document outlines the current thinking of FDA regarding information that should be provided in premarket notification submissions (510(k)s) and device labeling for x-ray imaging devices that are indicated for pediatric populations or general use x-ray imaging devices for which considerable pediatric application is anticipated. General use x-ray imaging devices typically neither include nor exclude specific populations in the indications for use and may be expected to be used in any population. Because a large percentage of the hundreds of millions of x-ray examinations performed annually in the United States are exams of pediatric patients, FDA expects that most general use x-ray imaging devices will be used for a considerable quantity of pediatric examinations unless a device's design precludes use in smaller sized patients. This guidance is intended to enhance clarity regarding the premarket review process of 510(k)s for x-ray imaging devices, to encourage the inclusion of pediatric indications for use for x-ray imaging device 510(k)s, and to provide recommendations regarding labeling, including the instructions for use.

    In February 2010, FDA launched an “Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging” (https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm2007191.htm); and on March 30 and 31, 2010 (75 FR 8375, February 24, 2010), the Agency held a public meeting entitled “Device Improvements to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging” (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/02/24/2010-3674/device-improvements-to-reduce-unnecessary-radiation-exposure-from-medical-imaging-public-meeting). At the meeting, FDA sought advice on “steps that manufacturers of computerized tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic devices could take to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure through improved product design, enhanced labeling, or improved instructions and training for equipment use and quality assurance at medical imaging facilities.” The Agency asked whether manufacturers should incorporate special provisions for pediatric patients, particularly with regard to hardware and software features. Recommendations received by FDA, which apply to all general-use x-ray imaging modalities, included making available pediatric protocols and control settings, targeted instructions, and educational materials emphasizing pediatric dose reduction, quality assurance tools for facilities emphasizing radiation dose management, and dose information applicable to pediatric patients. Many of the recommendations from pediatric experts focused on expanding the flexibility or range of features already available on x-ray imaging devices, which may also improve adult imaging for nonstandard applications.

    In the Federal Register of May 10, 2012 (77 FR 27461), the Agency announced the issuance of the draft guidance entitled “Pediatric Information for X-ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications” and interested persons were invited to comment by September 7, 2012. On July 16, 2012 (77 FR 27463, May 10, 2012), the Agency held a public meeting entitled “Device Improvements for Pediatric X-ray Imaging” (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2012-N-0385-0002) where FDA also solicited public feedback on the draft of this guidance. FDA has considered the comments received and has incorporated changes suggested by the comments, as appropriate. In addition, FDA requested help in identifying issues relevant to radiation safety in pediatric x-ray imaging that might benefit from standards development or further research at this workshop. FDA requested specific comments on technical device design and pediatric safety questions. Since the 2012 meeting, many recommended device design improvements have been incorporated into FDA-recognized consensus standards, and others are under consideration for future revisions of such standards.

    In 2014, the Agency issued a revised general pediatric guidance entitled “Premarket Assessment of Pediatric Medical Devices.” The guidance, which applies to all devices, defines pediatric subpopulations and the general information that should be provided for different types of premarket submissions for devices intended for use in pediatric populations.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on pediatric information for x-ray imaging device 510(k)s. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. This guidance document is also available at https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Pediatric Information for X-ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1771 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations and guidance documents. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 1002, 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040, and 1050 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0025. The collections of information in the guidance document “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756. In addition, FDA concludes that the Indications for Use warning label does not constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA. Rather, the labeling statements are “public disclosure(s) of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public.” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2).)

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25632 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-1195 and FDA-2016-E-1534] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; Senza Spinal Cord Stimulation System AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for Senza Spinal Cord Stimulation System and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by January 29, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by May 29, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of January 29, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-1195 and FDA-2016-E-1534 for Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SENZA SPINAL CORD STIMULATION SYSTEM. Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with § 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device Senza Spinal Cord Stimulation System. Senza Spinal Cord Stimulation System is indicated as an aid in the management of chronic intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs, including unilateral or bilateral pain associated with the following: Failed back surgery syndrome, intractable low back pain, and leg pain. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for Senza Spinal Cord Stimulation System (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,712,533 and 8,768,472) from Nevro Corporation, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 12, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of SENZA Spinal Cord Stimulation System represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for Senza Spinal Cord Stimulation System is 1,136 days. Of this time, 820 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 316 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective: March 30, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section 520(g) of the FD&C Act for human tests to begin became effective was March 30, 2012.

    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): June 27, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application (PMA) for SENZA SPINAL CORD STIMULATION SYSTEM (PMA P130022) was initially submitted June 27, 2014.

    3. The date the application was approved: May 8, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P130022 was approved on May 8, 2015.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 312 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984). Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25684 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-E-1237] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SAVAYSA AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for SAVAYSA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by January 29, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by May 29, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of January 29, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-E-1237 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SAVAYSA.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with § 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product SAVAYSA (edoxaban tosylate monohydrate). SAVAYSA is indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and is also indicated for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism following 5-10 days of initial therapy with a parenteral anticoagulant. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for SAVAYSA (U.S. Patent No. 7,365,205) from Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 12, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of SAVAYSA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for SAVAYSA is 3,845 days. Of this time, 3,479 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 366 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: July 1, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that July 1, 2004, is the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: January 8, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for SAVAYSA (NDA 206316) was initially submitted on January 8, 2014.

    3. The date the application was approved: January 8, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 206316 was approved on January 8, 2015.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,406 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25703 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-E-0623] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZERBAXA AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for ZERBAXA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by January 29, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by May 29, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of January 29, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-E-0623 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZERBAXA.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with § 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product ZERBAXA (ceftolozane sulfate and tazobactam sodium). ZERBAXA is indicated for the treatment of the following infections caused by designated susceptible micro-organisms:

    • Complicated intra-abdominal infections, used in combination with metronidazole and

    • Complicated urinary tract infections, including pyelonephritis.

    Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for ZERBAXA (U.S. Patent No. 7,129,232) from Astellas Pharma, Inc. and Wakunaga Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated May 10, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of ZERBAXA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for ZERBAXA is 2,360 days. Of this time, 2,117 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 243 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: July 5, 2008. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on July 5, 2008.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: April 21, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for ZERBAXA (NDA 206829) was initially submitted on April 21, 2014.

    3. The date the application was approved: December 19, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 206829 was approved on December 19, 2014.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,302 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25682 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Amended; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, December 11, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to December 11, 2017, 3:30 p.m., National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2017, 82 FR 54389.

    This notice is amended to change the meeting date from December 11, 2017 to December 13, 2017. The meeting time and location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25631 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1755] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1755, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address Racine County, Wisconsin and Incorporated Areas Project: 15-05-3520S Preliminary Dates: February 14, 2017 and August 23, 2017 Village of Caledonia Village Hall, 5043 Chester Lane, Racine, WI 53402. Village of Mount Pleasant Village Hall, 8811 Campus Drive, Mount Pleasant, WI 53406.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25615 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1757] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1757, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address Las Animas County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas Project: 13-08-0163S Preliminary Date: February 17, 2017 City of Trinidad City Government Office, 135 North Animas Street, Trinidad, CO 81082. Town of Aguilar Las Animas County Land Use Office, 200 East 1st Street, Room 102, Trinidad, CO 81082. Town of Starkville Town Hall, 8531 Pinon Street, Starkville, CO 81082. Unincorporated Areas of Las Animas County Las Animas County Land Use Office, 200 East 1st Street, Room 102, Trinidad, CO 81082. Dixie County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Project: 12-04-7915S Preliminary Date: November 30, 2016 Town of Cross City Town Hall, 99 Northeast 210th Avenue, Cross City, FL 32628. Town of Horseshoe Beach Town Hall, 18 5th Avenue East, Horseshoe Beach, FL 32648. Unincorporated Areas of Dixie County Dixie County Building and Zoning Department, 387 Southeast 22nd Avenue, Cross City, FL 32628. Levy County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Project: 12-04-7915S Preliminary Date: August 12, 2016 City of Cedar Key City Hall, 490 2nd Street, Cedar Key, FL 32625. Town of Inglis Town Hall, 135 Highway 40 West, Inglis, FL 34449. Town of Yankeetown Town Hall, 6241 Harmony Lane, Yankeetown, FL 34498. Unincorporated Areas of Levy County Levy County Development Department, 622 East Hathaway Avenue, Bronson, FL 32621. Taylor County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Project: 12-04-7915S Preliminary Date: December 23, 2016 City of Perry City Hall, 224 South Jefferson Street, Perry, FL 32347. Unincorporated Areas of Taylor County Taylor County Courthouse Annex, 201 East Green Street, Perry, FL 32347. Caldwell County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 16-06-1113S Preliminary Date: April 7, 2017 City of Luling City Hall, 509 East Crockett Street, Luling, TX 78648. City of Martindale City Hall, 409 Main Street, Martindale, TX 78655. City of San Marcos City Hall, 630 East Hopkins Street, San Marcos, TX 78666. Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County Caldwell County Courthouse, 110 South Main Street, Lockhart, TX 78644. Gonzales County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 16-06-1113S Preliminary Date: April 7, 2017 City of Gonzales City Hall, 820 St. Joseph Street, Gonzales, TX 78629. Unincorporated Areas of Gonzales County Gonzales County Courthouse, 414 St. Joseph Street, Suite 200, Gonzales, TX 78629. Guadalupe County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 16-06-1113S Preliminary Date: April 7, 2017 City of Luling City Hall, 509 East Crockett Street, Luling, TX 78648. City of Staples Civic Center, 9615 FM 621, Staples, TX 78670. Unincorporated Areas of Guadalupe County Guadalupe County Environmental Health Department, 2605 North Guadalupe Street, Seguin, TX 78155. Hays County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 16-06-1113S Preliminary Date: April 7, 2017 City of Austin Watershed Engineering Division, 505 Barton Springs Road, 12th Floor, Austin, TX 78704. City of Buda City Hall, 121 Main Street, Buda, TX 78610. City of Dripping Springs Public Works Department, 511 Mercer Street, Dripping Springs, TX 78620. City of Hays Hays City Hall, 520 Country Lane, Buda, TX 78610. City of Kyle Engineering Department, 100 West Center Street, Kyle, TX 78640. City of Mountain City City Hall, 101 Mountain City Drive, Mountain City, TX 78610. City of San Marcos City Hall, 630 East Hopkins Street, San Marcos, TX 78666. City of Wimberley Public Works Department, 221 Stillwater, Wimberley, TX 78676. City of Woodcreek City Hall, 41 Champions Circle, Woodcreek, TX 78676. Unincorporated Areas of Hays County Hays County Development Services Department, 2171 Yarrington Road, San Marcos, TX 78666. Village of Bear Creek Bear Creek Community Map Repository, 8600 North Madrone Trail, Austin, TX 78737.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25618 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002] Final Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    The date of February 16, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address Cameron County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1546 and FEMA-B-1655 City of Brownsville Building and Permitting Division, 1034 East Levee Street, Brownsville, TX 78520. City of Harlingen Lon C. Hill Building, 502 East Tyler Avenue, Harlingen, TX 78550. City of La Feria City Hall, 115 East Commercial Avenue, La Feria, TX 78559. City of Los Fresnos City Hall, 200 North Brazil Street, Los Fresnos, TX 78566. City of Los Indios City Hall, 109 East 6th Street, Los Indios, TX 78567. City of Port Isabel City Hall, 305 East Maxan Street, Port Isabel, TX 78578. City of Rio Hondo Municipal Building, 121 North Arroyo Boulevard, Rio Hondo, TX 78583. City of San Benito Planning and Development Department, 400 North Travis Street, San Benito, TX 78586. City of Santa Rosa City Hall, 413 South Santa Cruz Avenue, Santa Rosa, TX 78593. City of South Padre Island City Hall, 4601 Padre Boulevard, South Padre Island, TX 78597. Town of Bayview Town Office, 104 South San Roman Road, Bayview, TX 78566. Town of Combes Town Hall, 21626 Hand Road, Combes, TX 78535. Town of Indian Lake Indian Lake Town Hall, 62 South Aztec Cove Drive, Los Fresnos, TX 78566. Town of Laguna Vista Town Hall, 122 Fernandez Street, Laguna Vista, TX 78578. Town of Rancho Viejo Town Hall, 3301 Carmen Avenue, Rancho Viejo, TX 78575. Town of Rangerville Harlingen Irrigation District, 301 East Pierce Avenue, Harlingen, TX 78550. Unincorporated Areas of Cameron County Cameron County, San Bentio Annex, 1390 West Expressway 83, San Benito, TX 78586.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25619 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Customer Comment Card AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-Day Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0030, abstracted below to OMB for a revision of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This collection allows customers to provide feedback to TSA about their experiences with TSA's processes and procedures, to request information or request assistance at the TSA checkpoint, and to report security threats and vulnerabilities.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by December 28, 2017. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on September 26, 2017 (82 FR 44836).

    Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation will be made available at http://www.reginfo.gov upon its submission to OMB. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;

    (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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Title: TSA Customer Comment Card.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-0030.

    Forms(s): NA.

    Affected Public: Travelling public.

    Abstract: The ICR is a voluntary program for airport passengers to provide feedback to TSA regarding their experiences with TSA. The collection of information allows TSA to evaluate and address customer concerns about security procedures and policies.

    TSA Customer Comment Cards collect feedback, compliments, and complaints and the passenger may voluntarily provide contact information. TSA uses the contact information to respond to the passenger's comments. For passengers who deposit their cards in the designated drop-boxes, TSA staff at airports collect the cards, categorize comments, enter the results into an online system for reporting, and respond to passengers as appropriate.

    In addition, passengers may reach the TSA Contact Center (TCC) online at www.tsa.gov/contact/contact-forms. This site provides electronic forms of the comment card and are intended for the same purpose; to allow passengers to provide feedback to TSA regarding their experiences with TSA security procedures. Passengers may also use the electronic form to file Disability or Civil Rights and Liberties complaints. TCC provides a receipt to any person who submits an electronic form. The information obtained from the electronic forms allows TSA to evaluate and address customer concerns about security procedures and policies with an electronic interface.

    TSA is revising the collection to add three new electronic forms: Request for Assistance, Request for Information, and Security Issue. The Request for Assistance electronic form allows passengers to request assistance at the TSA checkpoint as part of the TSA Cares Program. This program was developed for passengers with disabilities, medical conditions, and other special circumstances who may need additional assistance during the security screening process. The program is available to all members of the public and is separate from the Military Severely Injured Joint Support Operations Center (MSIJSOC) and the Travel Protocol Office (TPO) programs which support and facilitate the movement of wounded warriors, severely injured military personnel, veterans and other travelers requiring an escort through the airport security screening process. The Request for Information electronic form allows passengers to submit an inquiry about TSA policies and procedures such as traveling with medical conditions, prohibited & permitted items, and security screening. The Security Issue electronic form allows passengers to play a critical role in identifying and reporting suspicious activities and threats. TCC will also provide receipts to any person who uses the three new electronic forms. TSA is required to provide a receipt to any person who reports a security problem, deficiency, or vulnerability. See 49 CFR 1503.3(a).

    Number of Respondents: An estimated 203,659 respondents annually.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 18,431 hours annually.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25670 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Exercise Information System AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0057, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of a revision of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden for the TSA Exercise Information System (EXIS).

    DATES:

    Send your comments by December 28, 2017. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on August 22, 2017, 82 FR 39900. EXIS is a web portal designed to serve stakeholders in the transportation industry in regard to security training exercises. EXIS provides stakeholders with transportation security exercise scenarios and objectives, best practices and lessons learned, and a repository of the user's own historical exercise data for use in future exercises. It also allows stakeholders to design and evaluate their own security exercises based on the unique needs of their specific transportation mode or method of operation. Utilizing and inputting information into EXIS is completely voluntary.

    Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation will be available at http://www.reginfo.gov upon its submission to OMB. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;

    (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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Title: Exercise Information System (EXIS).

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-0057.

    Forms(s): NA.

    Affected Public: Transportation System Sector.

    Abstract: The Exercise Information System (EXIS) is a voluntary, online tool developed by TSA to support the mission of a program developed and implemented by TSA to fulfill requirements of the Implementing Recommendations of the 911 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act).1 These statutory programs led to the development of the Intermodal Security Training Exercise Program (I-STEP) for the Transportation Systems Sector (TSS). Within the I-STEP program, EXIS is an interactive resource for the TSS.

    1See 9/11 Act secs. 1407 (public transportation, codified at 6 U.S.C. 1136(a)), 1516 (railroads, codified at 6 U.S.C. 1166), and 1533 (over-the-road buses, codified at 6 U.S.C. 1183).

    Number of Respondents: 9,551.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 4,804 hours annually.2

    2 TSA made an error in its calculations and reported the burden in the 60-day notice as 4,820 hours annually. The correct calculation is 4,804.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25669 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2017-N108; FXES11140200000-178-FF02ENEH00] Notice of Availability; Draft Environmental Assessment for a Draft Amendment To Add the Northern Mexican Gartersnake to the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of documents; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as the lead Federal agency, along with the Bureau of Reclamation as a cooperating agency and the implementing agency for the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP), announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act. The draft EA evaluates the impacts of, and alternatives to, amendment of the existing Endangered Species Act permit for the LCR MSCP, in order to add the northern Mexican gartersnake as a covered species, and the impacts of implementation of the amended LCR MSCP.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be received or postmarked on or before December 28, 2017. Any comments we receive after the closing date or not postmarked by the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents:

    Internet: You may obtain copies of the draft EA, which includes the draft amendment to the LCR MSCP, on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Web site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

    U.S. Mail: A limited number of CD-ROM and printed copies of the draft EA and associated draft amendment to the LCR MSCP are available, by request, from the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 9828 N. 31st Avenue #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051; by phone at 602-242-0210; or by fax at 602-242-2513. Please note that your request is in reference to the draft amended LCR MSCP for northern Mexican gartersnake.

    In-Person: Copies of the draft EA and associated draft amendment to the LCR MSCP are also available for public inspection and review at the following locations, by appointment and written request only, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.:

    ○ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

    ○ Arizona Ecological Services Office (Phoenix; see information under U.S. Mail, above).

    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods.

    U.S. Mail: Arizona Ecological Services Office (Phoenix; see information under U.S. Mail, Obtaining Documents, above).

    Electronically: [email protected] or [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor (see contact information for Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (Phoenix) in ADDRESSES.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), as the lead Federal agency, along with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) as a cooperating agency and the implementing agency for the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP), announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA). The draft EA evaluates the impacts of, and alternatives to, amendment of an existing permit for the LCR MSCP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), in order to add the northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques) as a covered species, as well as the impacts of implementation of the amended LCR MSCP.

    Under the proposed amendment, there are no proposed changes to covered actions; no changes to the covered area; and no extension of the time period of permit coverage. Permittees with existing LCR MSCP certificates of inclusion are bound by the terms and conditions of their existing requirements. The amendment is not expected to trigger any new environmental consequences that were not identified in the LCR MSCP final programmatic environmental impact statement/environmental impact report (LCR MSCP EIS/EIR), which was prepared for the original LCR MSCP, or any new impacts to local economies or cultural resources. Nor are there any expected changes to direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, beyond those identified for biological resources.

    Coverage for incidental take of the northern Mexican gartersnake will include the entire program area, as defined in the record of decision (ROD) for the LCR MSCP EIS/EIR, dated April 2005. This includes areas up to and including the full-pool elevation of Lakes Mead, Mohave, and Havasu and the historical floodplain of the Colorado River to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. The ROD also included off-site conservation areas for implementing the LCR MSCP. The LCR MSCP, with Reclamation as the implementing agency, will manage 512 acres of LCR MSCP-created marsh for the northern Mexican gartersnake. Of the 5,940 acres of LCR MSCP-created cottonwood-willow, 984 acres will be managed near marshes for the northern Mexican gartersnake.

    Background

    The original LCR MSCP permit was approved on April 4, 2005 (69 FR 75556), and extends through April 30, 2055. The LCR MSCP is a combined ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) and ESA section 7 approach to ESA compliance for implementation of covered activities for non-Federal (section 10) and Federal (section 7) participants.

    The LCR MSCP is a habitat-based program that is responsible for the creation and management of land-cover types that benefit multiple covered species, including 5,940 acres of cottonwood-willow; 1,320 acres of honey mesquite; 512 acres of marsh; and 360 acres of backwater.

    The LCR MSCP currently includes measures necessary to minimize and mitigate impacts to the 26 listed and unlisted species and their habitats covered by the plan. Take of covered species is incidental to covered activities associated with river operations and, water and power delivery to Arizona, California, and Nevada. The LCR MSCP provides incidental take coverage to the following listed species;

    Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Endangered Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) Endangered Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Endangered Yuma Ridgway's (clapper) rail (Rallus obsoletus [=longirostris] yumanensis) Endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) Endangered Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Threatened

    During the initial development of the LCR MSCP in 2005, the northern Mexican gartersnake was not considered for coverage, because the species was believed to be extirpated within the planning area. However, subsequently, the species was found to be present. On July 8, 2014, the Service listed the northern Mexican gartersnake as threatened under the ESA, and critical habitat was proposed, including portions of the Bill Williams River. In 2012, northern Mexican gartersnakes were detected in portions of the Bill Williams River, between Alamo Dam and the Colorado River. In 2015, the northern Mexican gartersnake was confirmed at the LCR MSCP's Beal Lake Conservation Area on Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, on the east side of the Colorado River, where it had been considered extirpated.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Amy Lueders, Regional Director, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25650 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GR17ND00GCT2800; OMB Control Number 1028—New] Agency Information Collection Activities; Phragmites Adaptive Management Framework AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the USGS is proposing a new information collection (IC).

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 159, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `Information Collection 1028—NEW, Phragmites Adaptive Management Framework' in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clint Moore, USGS Research Wildlife Biologist, at (706) 542-1166 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the USGS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

    We are soliciting comments on the proposed IC that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Abstract: The Phragmites Adaptive Management Framework (PAMF) is a collaborative effort to confront and reduce the spread of invasive Phragmites grass in the Great Lakes watershed. Phragmites is associated with reduced water quality, loss of biodiversity, reduced recreational opportunities, and increased fire hazards. Reducing or eliminating Phragmites throughout the region will reverse these deleterious effects and help achieve the comprehensive restoration goals for the Great Lakes basin (see the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative at https://www.glri.us/). The PAMF initiative uses the principles of adaptive management, a learning-based form of management in which data gathered following a treatment action are used to improve the predictive models that inform the decision-making process itself. Identified as a priority by the multi-national Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative (http://www.greatlakesphragmites.net/), PAMF is a network of public and private cooperators who share a common desire to reduce or eradicate invasive Phragmites on lands that they manage. Membership in PAMF is voluntary and occurs after the cooperator has decided to treat Phragmites. A process is being developed to deliver site-specific guidance to participants that will both help them understand what treatment approach is most likely to achieve their management objectives and support regional adaptive learning through improvements and feedbacks to underlying scientific models. Cooperators will monitor and report vegetation characteristics on lands enrolled in the program, and they will report attributes about treatments applied. The data will be used in analytical routines that will indicate a best treatment action to apply based on measured conditions and will update the set of predictive models that underlie the decision support tool. USGS is providing scientific leadership to the initiative through the development of models, monitoring design, data systems, and a workflow to process the collected data into management guidance.

    Title: Phragmites Adaptive Management Framework.

    OMB Control Number: 1028—NEW.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Affected Public: General public, private-sector business entities, NGOs, governmental entities (Federal, State, Local, Tribal, Provincial).

    Frequency of Collection: Information is collected twice annually for each enrolled parcel, for as long as participant is enrolled in the program.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 200.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 400.

    Estimated Time per Response: An individual is expected to complete one response in about 4 hours, including review of training materials, traversing the property to observe conditions, and entering information into a web-based form.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1,600.

    Respondent's Obligation: Participation is voluntary but is required to obtain treatment guidance.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: None.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The authorities for this action are Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Russell Strach, Center Director, USGS Great Lakes Science Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25679 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau Of Land Management [LLNMF00000.L13100000.PP0000 18X LXSSG0860000] Notice of Public Meeting, Farmington District Resource Advisory Council, New Mexico AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Farmington District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The Farmington District RAC will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, January 30, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and a field trip on Wednesday, January 31, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Farmington District RAC will meet at the BLM Farmington District Office, 6251 College Blvd., Suite A, Farmington, NM 87402. The field trip participants will depart from the BLM Farmington District Office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Zach Stone, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Farmington District Office, 6251 College Blvd., Suite A, Farmington, NM 87402, (505) 564-7677, or [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at (800) 877-8339. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with Mr. Stone. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Farmington District RAC consists of 10 members chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. The RAC provides advice to BLM resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in the BLM's Farmington District. Both the field trip and meeting are open to the public. However, the public is required to provide its own transportation for the field trip.

    Agenda items for the meeting include an introduction of new RAC members; the election of a new RAC Chair; an updates on the Farmington Resources Management Plan Amendment and the land use planning in the Taos Field Office; updates on the Taos general recreation plan and the Farmington Glade Run recreation implementation plan; an overview of fire and fuel plan treatments for the Farmington District; an overview of Farmington District grazing permits; a presentation on Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; and a presentation of BLM's role in the Four Corners Air Quality Group. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the Farmington District RAC may also be addressed.

    On January 31, the RAC will participate in a field trip to Chockcherry Canyon in the Glade Run Recreation Area. More information is available at https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/resource-advisory-council/near-you/new-mexico/farmington-district-rac.

    Public Disclosure of Comments: The January 30, 2018, meeting will include a public comment period which will begin at 3:00 p.m. and continue to 3:30 p.m. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the amount of time for individual oral comments may be limited. The public may also submit written comments to Zach Stone, Farmington District, New Mexico, 6251 College Blvd., Suite A, Farmington, NM 87402; or by telephone (505) 564-7677, no later than January 29, 2018, to be made available to the RAC at the January 30, 2018, meeting. All written comments received prior to the meeting will be provided to the council members.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 1784.4-2.

    David M. Herrell, Acting Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25667 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNML00000 L12200000.DF0000 18XL1109AF] Notice of Public Meeting, Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council, New Mexico AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The BLM Las Cruces District RAC will participate in a field trip on Tuesday, January 30, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and hold a public meeting on Wednesday, January 31, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Las Cruces District RAC will meet at the BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88001. The field trip participants will depart from the BLM Las Cruces District Office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah Stevens, BLM Las Cruces District, New Mexico, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88001, (575) 525-4421. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may contact Ms. Stevens by calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at (800) 877-8339. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with Ms. Stevens. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico. The field trip on January 30, 2018, to the northern Potrillo Mountains will introduce the RAC members to the on-the-ground resources located and used by the public in the area. The public should provide their own transportation for the field trip. On January 31, 2018, the meeting agenda will include updates on current and proposed projects in the BLM Las Cruces District, including lands and realty, planning and energy projects; the Tri-County Supplemental Resource Management Plan (RMP); and, the land use planning process in the Las Cruces District. Additional agenda topics or changes to the agenda will be announced in local news releases. More information is available at https://www.blm.gov/site-page/get-involved-rac-new-mexico-lcdo-rac. RAC meetings are open to the public.

    Public Disclosure of Comments: The meeting on January 31, 2018, will include a public comment period from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the amount of time for individual oral comments may be limited. To allow for full consideration of information by the council members, written comments must be provided to Deborah Stevens, BLM Las Cruces District, New Mexico, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88001; or by telephone (575) 525-4421, no later than Monday, January 29, 2018. All written comments received will be provided to the council members.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 1784.4-2.

    Melanie Barnes, Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25665 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation [RR03510000, XXXR0680R1, RR171260120019400] Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Pure Water San Diego Program, North City Project; San Diego County, California AGENCY:

    Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Reclamation and the City of San Diego have completed a draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) to evaluate the effects of the North City Project, the first phase of the Pure Water San Diego Program (Pure Water Program). The Pure Water Program is a water and wastewater facilities plan to produce potable water from recycled water.

    DATES:

    Please submit written comments no later than January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Doug McPherson, Southern California Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation, 27708 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 202, Temecula, CA 92590; or email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doug McPherson, Environmental Protection Specialist, Bureau of Reclamation, Southern California Area Office, 27708 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 202, Temecula, CA 92590; telephone: (951) 695-5310; facsimile: (951) 695-5319; or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Pure Water Program consists of the design and construction of new advanced water treatment facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, pump stations, and pipelines.

    The proposed project will expand the existing North City Water Reclamation Plant and construct an adjacent North City Pure Water Facility with a purified water pipeline to Miramar Reservoir. A project alternative would install a longer pipeline to deliver product water to the San Vicente Reservoir.

    Other project components include: A new pump station and forcemain to deliver additional wastewater to the North City Water Reclamation Plant, a brine discharge pipeline, and upgrades to the existing Metropolitan Biosolids Center to accommodate additional biosolids from the increased treatment capacity at the North City Water Reclamation Plant.

    A new North City Renewable Energy Facility is proposed and would be constructed at the North City Water Reclamation Plant to receive landfill gas from the City's Miramar Landfill gas collection system via a new gas pipeline, providing power to some of the North City Project components. The landfill gas line would cross Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and the Miramar National Cemetery.

    The Bureau of Reclamation issued a Notice of Intent on August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51937). The United States Marine Corps, the Veterans Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency have each accepted cooperating agency status.

    The draft EIR/EIS and technical appendices are available on the City of San Diego Web site at: https://www.sandiego.gov/water/purewater/purewatersd/reports.

    Public Disclosure

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Jacklynn Gould, Acting Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25662 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1087] Certain Batteries and Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on October 25, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of LG Chem, Ltd. of South Korea; LG Chem Michigan Inc. of Holland Michigan; LG Chem Power Inc. of Troy, Michigan; and Toray Industries, Inc. of Japan. A supplement was filed on November 15, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain batteries and electrochemical devices containing composite separators, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of U.S. Patent No. 7,662,517 (“the '517 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,638,241 (“the '241 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,709,152 (“the '152 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, Katherine M. Hiner, Docket Services, telephone (202) 205-1802.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on November 21, 2017, ordered that—

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain batteries and electrochemical devices containing composite separators, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 18 of the '517 patent; claims 1-5, 9-12, 14-31, and 33-36 of the '241 patent; and claims 1-13 and 16-20 of the '152 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are:

    LG Chem, Ltd. LG, Twin Towers, 128 Yeoui-daero, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 07336, South Korea LG Chem Michigan Inc., 1 LG Way, Holland, MI 49423 LG Chem Power Inc., 1857 Technology Drive, Troy, MI 48083 Toray Industries, Inc., Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower, 1-1, Nihonbashi-Muromachi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    (b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Amperex Technology Limited, 3503 Wharf Cable TV Tower, 9 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan N.T., Hong Kong DJI Technology Co., Ltd., 14th Floor, West Wing, Skyworth, Semiconductor Design Building, No. 18, Gaoxin South 4th Ave, Nanshan District, 518057 Shenzhen, China DJI Technology, Inc., 201 S Victory Boulevard, Burbank, CA 91502 Guangdong OPPO Mobile, Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., 18 Haibin Road, Wusha, Chang'An Town, Dongguan, 523850, Guangdong, China OPPO Digital, Inc., 162 Constitution Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 21, 2017. Katherine M. Hiner, Supervisory Attorney.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25624 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1086] Certain Mounting Apparatuses for Holding Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on October 24, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of National Products Inc. of Seattle, Washington. A supplement to the complaint was filed on November 3, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mounting apparatuses for holding portable electronic devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,544,161 (“the '161 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. D703,657 (“the '657 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,186,636 (“the '636 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. D571,278 (“the '278 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. D574,204 (“the '204 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,568,148 (“the '148 Patent”); and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,254,086 (“the '086 Trademark”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pathenia M. Proctor, Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on November 21, 2017, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine:

    (a) Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain mounting apparatuses for holding portable electronic devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-18 of the '161 patent; claim 1 of the '657 patent; claims 1-20 of the '636 patent; claim 1 of the '278 patent; claims 1 of the '204 patent; claims 1-13 of the '148 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (c) whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain mounting apparatuses for holding portable electronic devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of the '086 trademark; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are: National Products Inc., 8410 Dallas Ave S., Seattle, WA 98108.

    (b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Shenzhen Chengshuo Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a WUPP, Building A, No. 18, Zhongbuqiao, Qixianqiao Village, Dalu Ind. Zone, Liangzhu Town, Yuhang Dist., Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Foshan City Qishi Sporting Goods, Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a N-Star, Guangfo Road No. 71, Nanhai District, Foshan City, Guangdong, China 258200 Chengdu MWUPP Technology Co., Ltd, Building 1, Third Floor, Door 15, 10 Jinkang Road; Wuhou District, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, China 610045 Shenzhen Yingxue Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a Yingxue Tech, Room 14H, Haojingmingyuan Phase II, No. 28 Zhengqing Road, Buji Town, Longgang District, Shenzhen, China 518112 Shenzhen Shunsihang Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a BlueFire, Room 16D, Yonghuafu, Building No. 1, Longcheng Huafu, Longcheng St., Longgang, District, Shenzhen, China 518172 Guangzhou Kean Products Co., Ltd., Room 216-218, No. 275, D District, Zeng Cha Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China Prolech Electronics Limited, Building 2, Floor 2, Ba Fang Yuan Industrial, Gui Shan Road Number 9, Xixiang Town, Baoan District, Shenzhen, China Gangzhou Kaicheng Metal Produce Co., Ltd. d/b/a ZJMOTO No. 17, Xijiu Street, Jinshazhou, Baiyun Dist., Guangzhou, Guangdong, China 510165 Shenzhen Smilin Electronic Technology, Co., Ltd., 40 Building, Niulanqian Village, Minzhi Street, Baoan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China 518131 Shenzhen New Dream Intelligent Plastic, Co., Ltd., B511, Lanshang Innovation Park, No. 7, Xinfeng Road, Longcheng Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China 518172

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 21, 2017. Katherine M. Hiner, Supervisory Attorney.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25623 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-709 (Fourth Review)] Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Germany—Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from Germany would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    November 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lawrence Jones ((202) 205-3358), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On November 6, 2017, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (82 FR 35821, August 1, 2017) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements is available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on January 10, 2018, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before January 16, 2018 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by January 16, 2018. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf.

    2 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Determination.—The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 22, 2017. Katherine M. Hiner, Supervisory Attorney.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25639 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1001] Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Denial of Petition Requesting Reconsideration of Commission Determination Finding Petition of Certain Issues To Be Waived; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) has found a violation of section 337 in this investigation and has issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) prohibiting importation of certain digital video receivers and hardware and software components thereof, and has issued cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) directed to the Comcast respondents. This investigation is terminated.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (“EDIS”) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal, telephone 202-205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on May 26, 2016, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Rovi Corporation and Rovi Guides, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”), both of San Carlos, California. 81 FR 33547-48 (May 26, 2016). The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,006,263 (“the '263 patent”); 8,578,413 (“the '413 patent”); 8,046,801 (“the '801 patent”); 8,621,512 (“the '512 patent”); 8,768,147 (“the '147 patent”); 8,566,871 (“the '871 patent”); and 6,418,556 (“the '556 patent”). The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. at 33548.

    The Commission's notice of investigation named sixteen respondents (collectively, “Respondents”). The respondents are Comcast Corporation of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Business Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Holdings Corporation of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Shared Services, LLC of Chicago, IL (collectively, “Comcast”); Technicolor SA of Issy-les-Moulineaux, France; Technicolor USA, Inc. of Indianapolis, IN; Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC of Indianapolis, IN (collectively, “Technicolor”); Pace Ltd. of Saltaire, England (now ARRIS Global Ltd.); Pace Americas, LLC of Boca Raton, FL; ARRIS International plc of Suwanee, GA; ARRIS Group Inc. of Suwanee, GA; ARRIS Technology, Inc. of Horsham, PA; ARRIS Enterprises Inc. of Suwanee, GA (now ARRIS Enterprises LLC); and ARRIS Solutions, Inc. of Suwanee, GA (collectively, “ARRIS”). 81 FR at 33548; see also 82 FR 38934 (Aug. 16, 2017). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not a party to this investigation. 81 FR at 33548.

    Prior to the evidentiary hearing, Rovi withdrew its allegations as to certain patent claims. See Order No. 17 (Sept. 23, 2016), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Oct. 21, 2016); Order No. 25 (Nov. 14, 2016), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Dec. 2, 2016); Order No. 27 (Dec. 5, 2016), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Dec. 28, 2016). Rovi proceeded at the evidentiary hearing on the following patents and claims: Claims 7, 18, and 40 of the '556 patent; claims 1, 2, 14, and 17 of the '263 patent; claims 1, 5, 10, and 15 of the '801 patent; claims 12, 17, and 18 of the '871 patent; claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 18 of the '413 patent; and claims 1, 10, 13, and 22 of the '512 patent.

    On May 26, 2017, the administrative law judge (the “ALJ”) issued the final initial determination (the “Final ID”), which finds a violation of section 337 by Respondents in connection with the asserted claims of the '263 and '413 patents. The Final ID finds no violation of section 337 in connection with the asserted claims of the '556, '801, '871, and '512 patents. The ALJ recommended that, subject to any public interest determinations of the Commission, the Commission should issue an LEO directed to certain accused products, that CDOs issue to Respondents, and that the Commission should not require any bond during the Presidential review period (see 19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).

    On June 12, 2017, Rovi and Respondents filed with the Commission petitions for review of the Final ID. Respondents petitioned thirty-two of the Final ID's conclusions, and Rovi petitioned seven of the Final ID's conclusions. On June 20, 2017, the parties filed responsive submissions. On July 11, 2017, Rovi and Respondents filed statements on the public interest. The Commission also received and considered numerous comments on the public interest from non-parties. On July 5, 2017, Rovi and the ARRIS respondents filed a Joint Unopposed Motion for, and Memorandum in Support of, Leave to Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to Correct Corporate Names of Two ARRIS Respondents. The motion indicated that ARRIS Enterprises, Inc. has changed its name to ARRIS Enterprises LLC and that Pace Ltd. has changed its name to ARRIS Global Ltd. And, on July 25, 2017, Comcast submitted with the Office of the Secretary a letter including supplemental disclosure and representations. On July 31, 2017, Rovi submitted with the Office of the Secretary a response thereto. On August 9, 2017, Comcast filed a response to Rovi's submission.

    On August 10, 2017, and after having reviewed the record, including the petitions and responses thereto, the Commission determined to review the Final ID in part. 82 FR 38934-36 (Aug. 16, 2017) (the “Notice of Review”). In particular, the Commission determined to review the following:

    (1) The Final ID's determination that Comcast is an importer of the accused products (Issue 1 in Respondents' Petition for Review).

    (2) The Final ID's determination that Comcast has not sold accused products in the United States after the importation of those products into the United States (the issue discussed in section III of Rovi's Petition for Review).

    (3) The Final ID's determination that the accused Legacy products are “articles that infringe” (Issue 2 in Respondents' Petition for Review).

    (4) The issue of whether the X1 products are “articles that infringe” (Issue 3 in Respondents' Petition for Review), the issue of direct infringement of the '263 and '413 patents by the X1 accused products (Issue 5 in Respondents' Petition for Review), and the issue of “the nature and scope of the violation found” (the issue discussed in section X of Respondents' Petition for Review).

    (5) The issue of whether Comcast's two alternative designs infringe the '263 and '413 patents (Issue 4 in Respondents' Petition for Review).

    (6) The Final ID's claim construction of “cancel a function of the second tuner to permit the second tuner to perform the requested tuning operation” in the '512 patent, and the Final ID's infringement determinations as to that patent (Issue 26 in Respondents' Petition for Review).

    (7) The Final ID's conclusion that the asserted claims of the '512 patent are invalid as obvious (the issue discussed in section VI.B.4 of Rovi's Petition for Review).

    (8) The issue of whether the ARRIS-Rovi Agreement provides a defense to the allegations against the ARRIS respondents (the issue discussed in section XI of Respondents' Petition for Review).

    (9) The Final ID's conclusion that Rovi did not establish the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based on patent licensing (the issue discussed in section IV of Rovi's Petition for Review).

    Id. at 38935. The Commission determined to not review the remainder of the Final ID. Id. The Commission additionally concluded that Respondents' petition of certain issues decided in the Final ID was improper, and therefore, those assignments of error were waived. Id. In the Notice of Review, the Commission also granted the motion to correct the corporate names of two of the respondents and determined to reopen the evidentiary record and accept the supplemental disclosure, response thereto, and reply to the response. Id. at 38934-35. The Commission requested briefing on some of the issues under review and also on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. at 38935-36.

    On August 23, 2017, Respondents filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission's Determination of Waiver as to Certain Issues Specified in Respondents' Petition for Review or, Alternatively, Application of Waiver to Issues Raised in Rovi's Petition for Review. On August 30, 2017, Rovi filed a response thereto. The Commission has determined to deny that petition.

    On August 24, 2017, Rovi and Respondents filed their written submissions on the issues under review and on remedy, public interest, and bonding, and on August 31, 2017, the parties filed their reply submissions.

    Having examined the record in this investigation, the Commission has determined to affirm the Final ID's conclusion that Comcast has violated section 337 in connection with the asserted claims of the '263 and '413 patents.

    The Commission has determined to affirm the Final ID in part, affirm the Final ID with modifications in part, reverse the Final ID in part, vacate the Final ID in part, and take no position as to certain issues under review. More particularly, the Commission affirms the Final ID's determination that Comcast imports the accused X1 set-top boxes (“STBs”), and takes no position as to whether Comcast is an importer of the Legacy STBs. The Commission also takes no position on as to whether Comcast sells the accused products after importation.

    The Commission concludes that there is no section 337 violation as to the Legacy STBs. Regarding the X1 STBs, the Commission affirms the Final ID's conclusion that Comcast's customers directly infringe the '263 and '413 patents. Thus, the Commission affirms the Final ID's conclusion that complainant Rovi has established a violation by Comcast as to those patents and the X1 STBs.

    The Commission also takes the following actions. The Commission vacates the Final ID's conclusion that Comcast's two alternative designs infringe the '263 and '413 patents and instead concludes that those designs are too hypothetical to adjudicate at this time. The Commission modifies and affirms the Final ID's claim construction of the claim term “cancel a function of the second tuner to permit the second tuner to perform the requested tuning operation” in the '512 patent and affirms the Final ID's infringement determinations as to that patent. The Commission modifies and affirms the Final ID's conclusion that the asserted claims of the '512 patent are invalid as obvious. The Commission takes no position as to whether the ARRIS-Rovi Agreement provides a defense to the allegations against ARRIS, and as to whether Rovi established the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based on patent licensing. The Commission adopts the remainder of the Final ID to the extent that it does not conflict with the Commission's opinion or to the extent it is not expressly addressed in the Commission's opinion.

    Having found a violation of section 337 in this investigation by Comcast with respect to the '263 and '413 patents, the Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is (1) a LEO, that subject to certain exceptions provided therein, prohibits the unlicensed entry of certain digital video receivers and hardware and software components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 14, and 17 of the '263 patent and claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 18 of the '413 patent that are manufactured by, or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of Comcast or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns; and (2) CDOs that, subject to certain exceptions provided therein, prohibit Comcast from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling, offering for sale, leasing, offering for lease, renting, offering for rent, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for imported covered products; and aiding or abetting other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, lease after importation, rent after importation, transfer, or distribution of covered products.

    The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d) and (f) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d) and (f)) do not preclude issuance of the LEO or CDOs. Finally, the Commission has determined that the excluded digital video receivers and hardware and software components thereof may be imported and sold in the United States during the period of Presidential review with the posting of a bond in the amount of zero percent of the entered value of the infringing goods (i.e., no bond). The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 21, 2017. Katherine M. Hiner, Supervisory Attorney.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25625 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Stipulation and Order Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    On November 20, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Stipulation and Order with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the bankruptcy proceedings entitled In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc., et al., No. 12-11873 (SMB) (lead case).

    The United States filed a proof of claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, seeking, inter alia, the recovery of past costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA”), incurred by the United States responding to contamination at the Tri-County Public Airport site (“TCPA Site”) in Morris County, Kansas. Under the proposed Stipulation and Order, Hawker Beechcraft Corporation and related and successor entities (the “Hawker Parties”) agree that the United States will have an allowed general unsecured claim of $738,336.62 for response costs incurred prior to the petition date, to be paid at the rate provided in the confirmed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, and further agree that any claim for costs incurred on or after the petition date at the TCPA Site and three other Kansas sites (the Raytheon Aircraft Company Main Facility in Wichita, Kansas; Hangar 1 at Newton City-County Municipal Airport near Newton, Kansas; and Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport in Liberal, Kansas) is not discharged or impaired. Additionally, the Hawker Parties agree that they will comply with CERCLA administrative orders relating to the TCPA Site. In return, the United States covenants not to sue the Hawker Parties under CERCLA for any pre-petition response costs at the four sites.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Stipulation and Order. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-10751. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Stipulation and Order may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the Stipulation and Order upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $6.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Susan M. Akers, Assistant Section Chief, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25636 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039] Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

    DATES:

    The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:

    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected].

    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2110; email: [email protected]. OSHA's Web page includes information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA), as a NRTL. ITSNA's expansion covers the addition of seven test standards to its scope of recognition.

    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.

    The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are available from the Agency's Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

    ITSNA submitted an application, dated April 21, 2015, (OSHA-2007-0039-0026) to expand its recognition to include seven additional test standards. OSHA staff conducted a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.

    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing ITSNA's expansion application in the Federal Register on August 30, 2017 (82 FR 41292). The Agency requested comments by September 15, 2017, but it received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of ITSNA's scope of recognition.

    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to ITSNA's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039 contains all materials in the record concerning ITSNA's recognition.

    II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined ITSNA's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that ITSNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant ITSNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of ITSNA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.

    Table 1—List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in ITSNA's NRTL Scope of Recognition Test standard Test standard title UL 109 Tube Fittings for Flammable and Combustible Fluids, Refrigeration Service and Marine Use. UL 979 Water Treatment Appliances. UL 1429 Pullout Switches. UL 1441 Coated Electrical Sleeving. UL 2420 Belowground Reinforced Thermosetting Resin Conduit (RTRC) and Fittings. UL 2515 Aboveground Reinforced Thermosetting Resin Conduit (RTRC) and Fittings. UL 60950-21 Information Technology Equipment—Safety—Part 21: Remote Power Feeding.

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.

    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

    A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, ITSNA must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:

    1. ITSNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);

    2. ITSNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and

    3. ITSNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on ITSNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.

    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of ITSNA, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.

    III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 21, 2017. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25570 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System—Revision for 2018 AGENCY:

    Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.

    ACTION:

    Notice of 2018 Standard Occupational Classification final decisions.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announces its final decision for the 2018 revision of Statistical Policy Directive No. 10, Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). More details on these revisions are presented in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below and on https://www.bls.gov/SOC/.

    DATES:

    Effective date: Federal statistical agencies will begin using the 2018 SOC for occupational data they publish for reference years beginning on or after January 1, 2018. Electronic publication of the 2018 Standard Occupational Classification Manual is planned following the publication of this notice.

    The 2018 SOC was designed and developed solely for statistical purposes. Readers interested in the effective dates for the use of the 2018 SOC for non-statistical purposes should contact the relevant agency to determine the agency's plans, if any, for a transition from the 2010 SOC to the 2018 SOC.

    ADDRESSES:

    Correspondence about the adoption and implementation of the SOC as described in this Federal Register notice should be sent to: Nancy A. Potok, U.S. Chief Statistician, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, email [email protected] Inquiries about the definitions for particular occupations that cannot be satisfied by use of the Web site should be addressed to Standard Occupational Classification Policy Committee, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 2135, Washington, DC 20212; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Park, Senior Statistician, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under 31 U.S.C. 1104(d) and 44 U.S.C. 3504(e), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announces its final decision for the 2018 revision of Statistical Policy Directive No. 10, Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).

    The SOC classifies all occupations for which work is performed for pay or profit. It covers all jobs in the national economy, including occupations in the public, private, and military sectors. In this way, the SOC is designed to reflect the current occupational composition of the United States.

    The SOC supports efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal statistical system by providing a standard for occupation-based statistical data classification and thereby ensuring comparability of these data across Federal statistical agencies. Accordingly, all Federal agencies that publish occupational data for statistical purposes are required to use the SOC; State and local government agencies are strongly encouraged to use this national system to promote a common language for categorizing and analyzing occupations.

    Consistent with good statistical practice, these classifications are reviewed and revised periodically to ensure relevance and accuracy. Prior Federal Register notices requested public comment regarding the 2018 revision to the SOC (May 22, 2014, 79 FR 29620-29624; and July 22, 2016, 81 FR 48306-&48310). The Standard Occupational Classification Policy Committee (SOCPC, a Federal interagency technical working group) carefully reviewed comments received in preparing its recommendations. OMB carefully considered these recommendations when making the decisions presented in this notice. OMB has requested that the SOCPC prepare the 2018 Standard Occupational Classification Manual for publication online reflecting these final decisions. The 2018 SOC Manual, a complete crosswalk between the 2010 and 2018 SOC, and other supporting materials will be available online at https://www.bls.gov/SOC/ following publication of this notice.

    Future activities: To ensure that the SOC continues to reflect the structure of the changing workforce in a timely and accurate manner, the SOCPC will serve as a standing committee. The SOCPC will meet periodically to monitor and maintain the implementation of the 2018 SOC, such as recommending, as needed, clarification of SOC occupational definitions, placement of new occupations within the existing structure, and updating title files.

    Electronic Availability: This document is available at https://www.bls.gov/SOC/. The Web page contains links to previous SOC Federal Register notices and related documents, the full 2018 SOC structure and definitions, principles and guidelines, and other supporting materials, including the full 2018 SOC Manual.

    Purpose and History of the SOC

    The U.S. Federal statistical system is highly decentralized, with 13 principal Federal statistical agencies that have statistical activities as their primary mission and approximately 115 other agencies that carry out statistical activities in conjunction with other missions such as providing services, conducting research, or implementing laws and regulations. OMB coordinates the Federal statistical system by developing and overseeing the implementation of Government-wide principles, policies, standards, and guidelines concerning the presentation and dissemination of statistical information. These coordination efforts promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal statistical system. One such standard for statistical data classification established by OMB is Statistical Policy Directive No. 10, Standard Occupational Classification (SOC), which ensures consistency of occupation-based statistical data classification across Federal statistical activities.

    The SOC system classifies all occupations in the economy, including private, public, and military occupations, to facilitate comparability across occupational data produced for statistical purposes by Federal agencies. The SOC is designed to reflect the current occupational composition in the U.S. and to cover all occupations in which work is performed for pay or profit. Information about occupations— such as employment levels and projections, pay and benefits, skills required, and demographic characteristics of job holders—is widely used by individuals, businesses, researchers, educators, and public policy-makers.

    The SOC is designed exclusively for statistical purposes. Although the SOC may also be used for various non-statistical purposes (e.g., for administrative, regulatory, or taxation functions), the requirements of government agencies, businesses, or private users that choose to use the SOC for non-statistical purposes play no role in the development or revision of the SOC. The appropriateness of using the SOC for non-statistical purposes must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    The SOC was first issued in 1977. To reflect changes in the economy and in the nature of work, the SOC must be revised periodically. Prior to the 2000 SOC, the SOC was not widely used across Federal data collections. With the implementation of the 2000 SOC, all major occupational data collections in the Federal statistical system provided comparable data, greatly improving the utility of the data. The SOC has been revised four times since its inception: 1980, 2000, 2010, and this 2018 revision.

    A new feature was introduced in the 2010 SOC: The Direct Match Title File. This feature lists job titles associated with detailed SOC occupations. Each of these titles directly matches to a single SOC detailed occupation (i.e., one-to-one mappings, where all workers with the job title listed in the Direct Match Title File are classified into exactly one detailed SOC occupation code). The Direct Match Title File has been updated for 2018.

    2018 Revision for the SOC—Overview of the Revision Process

    The formal 2018 SOC revision process was initiated by OMB and the SOCPC through a request for public comment in a May 22, 2014, Federal Register notice (79 FR 29620). The 2018 revision process included two requests for public comment, review of the public comments by the SOCPC following each request, and the SOCPC making recommendations to OMB on the suite of 2018 revisions. The SOCPC created eight workgroups to carry out the bulk of the revision effort and examine occupations by groups of Major Groups. These workgroups were charged with reviewing the public comments received in response to each of the Federal Register notices and providing recommendations for addressing these comments to the SOCPC. The workgroups and the SOCPC made recommendations guided by the SOC Classification Principles and Coding Guidelines (available at https://www.bls.gov/SOC/). Following each review of public comments, the workgroups made recommendations by consensus to the SOCPC, the SOCPC reviewed the workgroup recommendations and made their own recommendations by consensus. The SOCPC sent their recommendations to OMB after reviewing both sets of public comments. These recommendations led to the creation of new occupations, revised occupational titles and definitions, and changes to the structure and placement of individual occupations.

    The May 22, 2014, Federal Register notice requested public comments on (1) the proposed new Classification Principle to the 2010 SOC Classification Principles emphasizing the importance of maintaining time series continuity: “To maximize the comparability of data, time series continuity is maintained to the extent possible;” (2) the intention to retain the 2010 SOC Coding Guidelines; (3) the intention to retain the 2010 SOC Major Group structure; (4) proposals for the correction, change, or combination of 2010 SOC detailed occupations; and (5) proposals for new detailed occupations. The comment period for the May 22, 2014, Federal Register notice closed on July 21, 2014. Approximately 300 public comments were received in response to this May 22, 2014, notice.

    OMB published the SOCPC interim recommendations in the July 22, 2016, Federal Register (81 FR 48306) requesting public comment on: (1) The 2018 SOC Classification Principles and Coding Guidelines recommended by the SOCPC; (2) the proposed hierarchical structure of the 2018 SOC, including changes to the major, minor, broad, and detailed occupation groups; (3) the titles, placement, and codes of new occupations that the SOCPC recommended be added in the revised 2018 SOC; and (4) preliminary definitions for revised and proposed 2018 SOC occupations. In conjunction with the publication of the July 22, 2016, Federal Register notice, rationales for the recommended changes in response to specific comments from the May 22, 2014, Federal Register notice were made available on the SOC Web site at https://www.bls.gov/SOC/. More than 6,300 public comments were received in response to the July 22, 2016, Federal Register notice.

    The SOCPC's final recommendations of additional changes to the SOC structures and definitions were shared with OMB in a report; this report will be available at https://www.bls.gov/SOC/.

    Public Comments

    Each of the more than 6,300 individual public comments in response to the July 22, 2016, Federal Register notice received a unique docket number when received and similar dockets were reviewed simultaneously by the workgroups and the SOCPC. In total, approximately 223 unique issues were identified in commenters' correspondence. The SOCPC's full set of responses to the comments received in response to the July 22, 2016, Federal Register notice will be available at https://www.bls.gov/SOC/.

    In some cases, the SOCPC recommended changes to the 2018 SOC based on input from member agencies and workgroups, separate from the public comment process. Changes to titles and definitions that resulted do not necessarily alter occupational coverage, but rather refine how occupations are described. For example, the SOCPC recommended accepting the internal suggestion for a different title, “Radiologic Technologists and Technicians” (29-2034) in place of the former 2010 SOC title, “Radiologic Technologists.”

    Many proposed new occupations were found to be already covered in the definition of an existing SOC occupation, resulting in no SOCPC recommended change or a SOCPC recommended change for clarification to the title or definition.

    2018 Revision for the SOC—OMB Decision

    The SOCPC's final recommendations for the 2018 revision to the SOC included a number of significant changes, including new occupations. Many recommended changes modified occupations' titles and definitions to appropriately reflect technological advancements within the occupations. Significant recommended updates were recommended in the management, business, finance, information technology, engineering, social science, education, media, healthcare, personal care, extraction, and transportation occupations.

    Through this notice, OMB announces its final decisions regarding the 2018 revision to the SOC. OMB's final decision is to adopt all of the SOCPC's final recommendations with the exception of one. The SOCPC recommended no change to the title of the 2010 SOC occupation 43-5031 Police, Fire, and Ambulance Dispatchers for the 2018 revision. OMB has decided not to accept the SOCPC's recommendation in this case and to change the title of the 2010 SOC occupation 43-5031 Police, Fire, and Ambulance Dispatchers to 43-5031 Public Safety Telecommunicators for the 2018 revision to the SOC. OMB made this decision to reflect better the full scope of occupations organized under this title. All other SOCPC recommendations are adopted as part of OMB's final decision on the 2018 revision to the SOC and are outlined on the SOC Web site at https://www.bls.gov/SOC/; the final 2018 SOC will be published in the online 2018 SOC Manual following publication of this notice.

    Compared to the 2010 SOC, the 2018 SOC realized a net gain of 27 detailed occupations and 1 minor group. The net number of broad occupations fell by 2 and the number of major groups remained unchanged. The 2018 SOC system contains 867 detailed occupations, aggregated into 459 broad occupations. In turn, the SOC combines these 459 broad occupations into 98 minor groups and 23 major groups. Of the 867 detailed occupations in the 2018 structure, 472 remained unchanged from 2010. Seventy detailed occupations are new to the 2018 SOC. Additional details describing the 2018 revisions are available on the SOC Web site at https://www.bls.gov/SOC/.

    Next Steps

    Implementation: Federal statistical agencies will implement the 2018 SOC as soon as is practical after its publication with the earliest implementations corresponding to collections with reference timeframes on or after January 1, 2018.

    Maintaining currency. The SOCPC will continue to meet periodically following publication of the 2018 SOC Manual, particularly to consider new and emerging occupations and additional titles for the Direct Match Title File.

    SOC users are reminded that the SOC coding system is designed to allow for delineation of occupations below the detailed occupation level for parties wishing to collect additional levels of detail, as stated in Coding Guideline 3, available at https://www.bls.gov/SOC/. OMB recommends that those needing extra detail consider using the structure of the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration's Occupational Information Network (O*NET), which adds a decimal point and additional digit (s) after the sixth digit of SOC codes.

    Richard P. Theroux, Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25622 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION [NARA-2018-006] Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the Federal Register for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records they no longer need to conduct agency business. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules.

    DATES:

    NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by December 28, 2017. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:

    Mail: NARA (ACRA); 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 301-837-3698.

    You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NARA publishes notice in the Federal Register for records schedules they no longer need to conduct agency business. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).

    Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

    The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)

    Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.

    In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.

    Schedules Pending

    1. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (DAA-0572-2017-0005, 13 items, 13 temporary items). Records documenting the Water and Environmental Loan programs, including routine correspondence at both the national and state level, and loan and borrower information. Also included is information on rural community loans used for wastewater management assistance.

    2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0053, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records related to cases of absence without leave.

    3. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0055, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records related to soldier and family fitness.

    4. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy (DAA-0434-2017-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records regarding applications for approval to import or export natural gas.

    5. Department of Justice, Criminal Division (DAA-0060-2017-0030, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Project-related administrative records and training materials of the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program. Proposed for permanent retention are records related to training projects in various countries.

    6. Department of Justice, Criminal Division (DAA-0060-2017-0033, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Project-related administrative records and training materials of the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training. Proposed for permanent retention are records related to training projects in various countries.

    7. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2016-0019, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Information returns submitted by companies and businesses reporting on employees' health insurance coverage and associated filing data.

    8. Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau (DAA-0173-2017-0001, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Records related to the management and oversight of the Universal Service Program administered by the Universal Service Administration Company (USAC). Includes applications, forms, audits, correspondence, and appeals made directly to USAC by consumers and telecommunications carriers.

    9. National Science Foundation, Office of the General Counsel (DAA-0307-2017-0001, 10 items, 10 temporary items). Administrative records relating to routine litigation. Included are legal advice files, tracking logs, and copies of subpoenas served to an NSF office or facility.

    10. Securities and Exchange Commission, Agency-wide (DAA-0266-2018-0001, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records documenting delegations of authority.

    Laurence Brewer, Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25628 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Institute of Museum and Library Services Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: 2019-2021 IMLS Collections Assessment for Preservation Program AGENCY:

    Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice, request for comments on this collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This pre-clearance consultation program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. By this notice, IMLS is soliciting comments concerning the Collections Assessment for Preservation (CAP) Program designed to support collections assessments for small and medium-sized museums throughout the nation.

    A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before January 24, 2018.

    IMLS is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: Dr. Sandra Webb, Senior Advisor, Office of the Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718 Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at [email protected], or by teletype (TTY/TDD) for persons with hearing difficulty at 202-653-4614.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's approximately 120,000 libraries and 35,000 museums and related organizations. Our mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Our grant making, policy development, and research help libraries and museums deliver valuable services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive. To learn more, visit www.imls.gov.

    II. Current Actions

    The Collections Assessment for Preservation Program (CAP) is designed to support collections assessments for small and medium-sized museums throughout the nation. The collections assessment is a study of all of the institution's collections, buildings and building systems, as well as its policies and procedures relating to collections care. Participants who complete the program receive an assessment report with prioritized recommendations to improve collections care.

    Agency: Institute of Museum and Library Services.

    Title: Collection Assessment for Preservation Program Forms.

    OMB Number: 3137-0103.

    Frequency: Once per application.

    Affected Public: Museum applicants.

    Number of Respondents: 775.

    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 392 hours.

    Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs: n/a.

    Total Annual Costs: $10,732.

    Public Comments Invited: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Sandra Webb, Senior Advisor, Office of the Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718 Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at [email protected], or by teletype (TTY/TDD) for persons with hearing difficulty at 202-653-4614.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Kim Miller, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25594 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7036-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Charter Renewal for Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and its implementing regulations, the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities (the Council) gives notice that the Charter for the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel advisory committee will be renewed for an additional two-year period on November 24, 2017. The Council determined that renewing the advisory committee is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the duties imposed on the Council by the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act, as amended.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. Telephone: (202) 606-8322, facsimile (202) 606-8600, or email at [email protected]. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the National Endowment for the Humanities' TDD terminal at (202) 606-8282.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25712 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Humanities Panel Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Charter Renewal for Humanities Panel advisory committee.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and its implementing regulations, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) gives notice that the Charter for the Humanities Panel advisory committee will be renewed for an additional two-year period on November 24, 2017. The Chairman of NEH determined that the renewal of the Humanities Panel is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Chairperson of NEH by the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. Telephone: (202) 606-8322, facsimile (202) 606-8600, or email at [email protected]. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the National Endowment for the Humanities' TDD terminal at (202) 606-8282.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25711 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-609; NRC-2013-0235] Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC; Notice of Hearing AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Construction permit application; notice of hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the uncontested proceeding regarding the application from Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI), for a construction permit (CP) to construct a medical radioisotope production facility in Columbia, Missouri. This mandatory hearing will consider safety and environmental matters relating to the requested CP.

    DATES:

    The hearing will be held on January 23, 2018, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. For the schedule for submitting pre-filed documents and deadlines affecting Interested Government Participants, see Section VI of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID 50-609 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    NRC's Electronic Hearing Docket: You may obtain publicly available documents related to this hearing on line at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory.html.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents,” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Denise McGovern, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-0681; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Commission hereby gives notice that, pursuant to Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended (the Act), it will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the proceeding regarding the NWMI application for a CP under part 50 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), to construct a medical radioisotope production facility in Columbia, Missouri.

    Part one of NWMI's two-part application was submitted by letter dated February 5, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15086A261), and by letter dated July 20, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15210A182), NWMI submitted the second part of its application. Revision 3 of the application may be viewed at ADAMS Accession No. ML17257A019.

    The NRC staff's Environmental Impact Statement and Safety Evaluation Report may be viewed at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17130A862 and ML17310A365, respectively. This mandatory hearing will concern safety and environmental matters relating to the requested construction permit application, as more fully described below.

    II. Evidentiary Uncontested Hearing

    The Commission will conduct this hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time on January 23, 2018, at the Commission's headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. The hearing will continue on subsequent days, if necessary.

    III. Presiding Officer

    The Commission is the presiding officer for this proceeding.

    IV. Matters To Be Considered

    The matter at issue in this proceeding is whether the review of the NWMI CP application by the Commission's staff has been adequate to support the findings found in 10 CFR 50.35, 50.40, 50.50, and 10 CFR 51.105. Those findings are as follows:

    Issues Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended

    With respect to the CP: (1) Whether the applicant has described the proposed design of the facility, including, but not limited to, the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design, and has identified the major features or components incorporated therein for the protection of the health and safety of the public; (2) whether such further technical or design information as may be required to complete the safety analysis, and which can reasonably be left for later consideration, will be supplied in the final safety analysis report (3) whether safety features or components, if any, which require research and development have been described by the applicant and the applicant has identified, and there will be conducted, a research and development program reasonably designed to resolve any safety questions associated with such features or components; (4) whether on the basis of the foregoing, there is reasonable assurance that, (i) such safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved at or before the latest date stated in the application for completion of construction of the proposed facility, and (ii) taking into consideration the site criteria contained in 10 CFR part 100, the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public; (5) whether there is reasonable assurance (i) that the construction of the facility will not endanger the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that construction activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; (6) whether the applicant is technically and financially qualified to engage in the proposed activities in accordance with the Commission's regulations in chapter I of title 10 of the CFR; (7) whether the issuance of a permit for the construction of the facility to the applicant will not, in the opinion of the Commission, be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and (8) whether the application meets the standards and requirements of the AEA and the Commission's regulations, and that notifications, if any, to other agencies or bodies have been duly made.

    Issues Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

    With respect to the CP: (1) Determine whether the requirements of Sections 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of NEPA and the applicable regulations in 10 CFR part 51 have been met; (2) independently consider the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken; (3) determine, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, whether the construction permit should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values; and (4) determine whether the NEPA review conducted by the NRC staff has been adequate.

    V. Schedule for Submittal of Pre-Filed Documents

    No later than January 2, 2018, unless the Commission directs otherwise, the NRC staff and the applicant shall submit a list of its anticipated witnesses for the hearing.

    No later than January 2, 2018, unless the Commission directs otherwise, the applicant shall submit its pre-filed written testimony. The NRC staff submitted its pre-filed testimony on November 16, 2017.

    The Commission may issue written questions to the applicant or the NRC staff before the hearing. If such questions are issued, an order containing such questions will be issued no later than December 20, 2017. Responses to such questions are due January 2, 2018, unless the Commission directs otherwise.

    VI. Interested Government Participants

    No later than December 18, 2017, any interested State, local government body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe may file with the Commission a statement of any issues or questions that the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe wishes the Commission to give particular attention as part of the uncontested hearing process. Such statement may be accompanied by any supporting documentation that the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe sees fit to provide. Any statements and supporting documentation (if any) received by the Commission using the agency's E-filing system 1 by the deadline indicated above will be made part of the record of the proceeding. The Commission will use such statements and documents as appropriate to inform its pre-hearing questions to the NRC staff and applicant, its inquiries at the oral hearing, and its decision following the hearing. The Commission may also request, no later than December 20, 2017, that one or more particular States, local government bodies, or Indian Tribes send one representative each to the evidentiary hearing to answer Commission questions and/or make a statement for the purpose of assisting the Commission's exploration of one or more of the issues raised by the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe, in the pre-hearing filings described above. The decision whether to request the presence of a representative of a State, local government body, or Indian Tribe at the evidentiary hearing to make a statement and/or answer Commission questions is solely at the Commission's discretion. The Commission's request will specify the issue or issues that each representative should be prepared to address.

    1 The process for accessing and using the agency's E-filing system is described in the May 24, 2016, notice of hearing (81 FR 32793) that was issued by the Commission for this proceeding. Participants who are unable to use the electronic information exchange (EIE), or who will have difficulty complying with EIE requirements in the time frame provided for submission of written statements, may provide their statements by electronic mail to [email protected]

    Many of the procedures and rights applicable to the inherently adversarial nature of NRC's contested hearing process are not available in this uncontested hearing. Participation in the NRC's contested hearing process is governed by 10 CFR 2.309 (for persons or entities, including a State, local government, or Indian Tribe seeking to file contentions of their own) and 10 CFR 2.315(c) (for an interested State, local government, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe seeking to participate with respect to contentions filed by others). Participation in this uncontested hear