Federal Register Vol. 82, No.231,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 231 (December 4, 2017)

Page Range57105-57329
FR Document

82_FR_231
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 57265 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 57201 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 57193 - Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for α-Methyl Mannoside for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various CommoditiesPDF
82 FR 57271 - Submission for OMB Review; General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Zero Burden Information Collection ReportsPDF
82 FR 57298 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment ReportPDF
82 FR 57296 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Disaster Unemployment Assistance Activities ReportPDF
82 FR 57202 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57253 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for September 2017PDF
82 FR 57325 - Guidance on Specified Persons Under Section 231 of the Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017PDF
82 FR 57137 - Pseudomonas fluorescens 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD-4); Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
82 FR 57140 - Prometryn; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 57205 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57135 - Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 Protein in or on Soybean; Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
82 FR 57144 - Quinclorac; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 57201 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57304 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 57295 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection; National Survey on Correctional Contraband (NCSS)PDF
82 FR 57297 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Request for Comments; Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, Executive Order 13495PDF
82 FR 57210 - Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
82 FR 57219 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
82 FR 57205 - Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 57214 - Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value and Countervailing Duty InvestigationsPDF
82 FR 57212 - Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific InstrumentsPDF
82 FR 57213 - Yale School of Medicine; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific InstrumentsPDF
82 FR 57209 - Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
82 FR 57208 - Stainless Steel Bar From Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
82 FR 57221 - Monosodium Glutamate From Indonesia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 57277 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57196 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Approval of Laboratories for Conducting Aquatic Animal Tests for Export Health CertificatesPDF
82 FR 57197 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; National Veterinary Services Laboratories Request FormsPDF
82 FR 57195 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Foot-And-Mouth Disease: Prohibition on Importation of Farm EquipmentPDF
82 FR 57197 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Poultry Meat and Other Poultry Products From Sinaloa and Sonora; Poultry and Pork Transiting the United StatesPDF
82 FR 57240 - Agency Information Collection Extension, With ChangesPDF
82 FR 57280 - Site Visit Training Program for Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Staff; Information Available to IndustryPDF
82 FR 57265 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 57240 - Application for Presidential Permit; Clean Power Northeast Development Inc.PDF
82 FR 57237 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Bay to Stockton General Reevaluation Report, San Francisco Bay, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 57225 - Performance Review Board MembershipPDF
82 FR 57289 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; UnitizationPDF
82 FR 57304 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 57304 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 57268 - Submission for OMB Review; Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction ContractsPDF
82 FR 57270 - Information Collection; Past Performance InformationPDF
82 FR 57162 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
82 FR 57281 - Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997: Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 048PDF
82 FR 57282 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Establishing and Maintaining Lists of United States Manufacturers/Processors With Interest in Exporting Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition-Regulated Products to ChinaPDF
82 FR 57288 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, First RevisionPDF
82 FR 57250 - Town of Canton, Connecticut; Notice of Application for License Reinstatement, Amendment, Transfer, Extension of License Term, and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway PrescriptionsPDF
82 FR 57246 - Sugar River Power LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions to IntervenePDF
82 FR 57253 - City of Hailey, Idaho; Notice of Application for Surrender of License, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 57252 - Roseburg Resources Company, Mega Renewables, Shasta Cascade Timberlands LLC; Notice of Application for Partial Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 57252 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
82 FR 57248 - Midship Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline ProjectPDF
82 FR 57301 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
82 FR 57295 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Comments Requested: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)PDF
82 FR 57299 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of Current Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 57225 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0062, Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Transactions; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 57224 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Saltwater Angler RegistryPDF
82 FR 57224 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Region Vessel Identification RequirementsPDF
82 FR 57223 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Region Gear Identification RequirementsPDF
82 FR 57326 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
82 FR 57207 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness Charter RenewalPDF
82 FR 57278 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection (OMB Approval Number 0985-0048); State Grants for Assistive Technology Program State Plan for Assistive TechnologyPDF
82 FR 57286 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal AgenciesPDF
82 FR 57279 - Food and Drug Administration Fiscal Year 2017 Performance Review Board MembersPDF
82 FR 57279 - Receipt of Notice That a Patent Infringement Complaint Was Filed Against a Biosimilar ApplicantPDF
82 FR 57265 - Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. and CrossAmerica Partners LP; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
82 FR 57174 - Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Reclassification of Single-Use Female Condom, To Be Renamed Single-Use Internal CondomPDF
82 FR 57119 - Safety Standard Mandating ASTM F963 for ToysPDF
82 FR 57290 - Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 57291 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference; Committee on Rules of Practice and ProcedurePDF
82 FR 57227 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 57327 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Forms 5498-QA and1099-QAPDF
82 FR 57327 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 57328 - Advisory Group to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Renewal of CharterPDF
82 FR 57328 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 57248 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 57251 - Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 2018 Expansion ProjectPDF
82 FR 57247 - Epsilon Trading, LLC, Chevron Products Company, Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice of ComplaintPDF
82 FR 57249 - Spire STL Pipeline LLC; Supplemental Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment and Reopening of Comment Period for the Proposed Spire STL Pipeline ProjectPDF
82 FR 57249 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 57234 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 57291 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 57181 - Privacy Act of 1974; ImplementationPDF
82 FR 57321 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Implementation Delay of Qualified Contingent Cross Order FunctionalitiesPDF
82 FR 57317 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify How the Options Regulatory Fee is Assessed and CollectedPDF
82 FR 57322 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 971.1NY To Amend the Duration of a Customer Best Execution AuctionPDF
82 FR 57306 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Margin MethodologyPDF
82 FR 57305 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 19.6, Series of Options Contracts Open for TradingPDF
82 FR 57313 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Clarifying How the Options Regulatory Fee is Assessed and CollectedPDF
82 FR 57286 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 57284 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 57285 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 57286 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 57284 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 57285 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 57232 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 57230 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 57320 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57316 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57301 - Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Rancho Seco Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
82 FR 57225 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 57288 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Reporting for HUD Research, Evaluation, and Demonstration Cooperative AgreementsPDF
82 FR 57273 - Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Provider Enrollment Application Fee Amount for Calendar Year 2018PDF
82 FR 57275 - Medicare Program; Town Hall Meeting on the FY 2019 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On PaymentsPDF
82 FR 57238 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction Grants-Subgrants to LEAsPDF
82 FR 57238 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Quarterly Cumulative Caseload ReportPDF
82 FR 57239 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Regulatory RequirementsPDF
82 FR 57302 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Clarification of Raceway and Raceway System DesignationsPDF
82 FR 57203 - Modification of June 27, 2017 Renewal of Temporary Denial OrderPDF
82 FR 57200 - Information Collection; Qualified Products Lists for Fire Chemicals for Wildland Fire ManagementPDF
82 FR 57183 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Logan Nonattainment Area Fine Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan for Attainment of 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
82 FR 57299 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: 2019-2021 IMLS Grant Application FormsPDF
82 FR 57199 - Information Collection; Timber Sale Contract Operations and AdministrationPDF
82 FR 57267 - Information Collection; Reporting and Use of Information Concerning Integrity and Performance of Recipients of Grants and Cooperative AgreementsPDF
82 FR 57269 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment for the Otay Mesa USDA Plant Inspection StationPDF
82 FR 57272 - Availability of Draft Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) Operations Manual and VSP Construction GuidelinesPDF
82 FR 57264 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 57261 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 57262 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 57265 - Notice of Agency RelocationPDF
82 FR 57161 - Rate-of-Return ReformPDF
82 FR 57271 - Submission for OMB Review; System for Award Management Registration Requirements for Prime Grant RecipientsPDF
82 FR 57325 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Palmyra: Loss and Remembrance” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 57125 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze SIP; FIP for Regional Haze; Final Action on Petitions for ReconsiderationPDF
82 FR 57126 - Approval and Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New York; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation PlansPDF
82 FR 57132 - Air Plan Approval; ID; 2012 PM2.5PDF
82 FR 57123 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
82 FR 57130 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
82 FR 57133 - Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Emission Reduction Credit BankingPDF
82 FR 57172 - Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. AirplanesPDF
82 FR 57117 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 57115 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 57151 - Ethofumesate; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 57149 - Extension of Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions (Multiple Chemicals)PDF
82 FR 57166 - 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 57164 - Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Decreased Assessment RatePDF
82 FR 57158 - Wireless Emergency Alerts; Emergency Alert SystemPDF
82 FR 57105 - Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear MaterialPDF

Issue

82 231 Monday, December 4, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Decreased Assessment Rates: Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, 57164-57166 2017-25737 Pecans Grown in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, 57166-57172 2017-25738 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Approval of Laboratories for Conducting Aquatic Animal Tests for Export Health Certificates, 57196-57197 2017-26060 Foot-And-Mouth Disease: Prohibition on Importation of Farm Equipment, 57195 2017-26058 Importation of Poultry Meat and Other Poultry Products from Sinaloa and Sonora; Poultry and Pork Transiting the United States, 57197-57199 2017-26057 National Veterinary Services Laboratories Request Forms, 57197 2017-26059 Army Army Department NOTICES Performance Review Board Membership, 57225 2017-26050 Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Unitization, 57289-57290 2017-26049 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Requests for Comments: Draft Vessel Sanitation Program Operations Manual and VSP Construction Guidelines, 57272-57273 2017-25955 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Provider Enrollment Application Fee Amount for Calendar Year 2018, 57273-57275 2017-25972 Meetings: FY 2019 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On Payments, 57275-57277 2017-25971 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form, 57277-57278 2017-26061 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 57201 2017-26145 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Analysis Bureau

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57201-57202 2017-26076 2017-26089
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Transactions; Correction, 57225 2017-26026 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: State Grants for Assistive Technology Program State Plan for Assistive Technology, 57278-57279 2017-26018 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Safety Standard Mandating ASTM F963 for Toys, 57119-57123 2017-26009 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction Contracts, 57268-57269 2017-26046 Past Performance Information, 57270-57271 2017-26045 Arms Sales, 57225-57237 2017-25974 2017-25978 2017-25980 2017-25996 2017-26006
Economic Analysis Bureau Economic Analysis Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57202-57203 2017-26010 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Regulatory Requirements, 57239-57240 2017-25968 Quarterly Cumulative Caseload Report, 57238-57239 2017-25969 Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction Grants—Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies, 57238 2017-25970 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material, 57105-57115 2017-25257 NOTICES Presidential Permit Applications: Clean Power Northeast Development Inc., 57240 2017-26052
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57240-57246 2017-26056 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: San Francisco Bay to Stockton General Reevaluation Report, San Francisco Bay, CA, 57237-57238 2017-26051 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Emission Reduction Credit Banking, 57133-57135 2017-25927 Idaho; 2012 PM2.5 Standard Infrastructure Requirements, 57132-57133 2017-25930 Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze SIP; FIP for Regional Haze; Final Action on Petitions for Reconsideration, 57125-57126 2017-25946 New York; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans, 57126-57130 2017-25945 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 57123-57125, 57130-57131 2017-25928 2017-25929 Extension of Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions (Multiple Chemicals), 57149-57151 2017-25826 Pesticide Tolerances: Ethofumesate, 57151-57158 2017-25828 Prometryn, 57140-57144 2017-26083 Quinclorac, 57144-57149 2017-26078 Temporary Tolerance Exemptions: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 Protein in or on Soybean, 57135-57137 2017-26080 Tolerance Exemptions: Pseudomonas fluorescens 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD-4), 57137-57140 2017-26086 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Utah; Logan Nonattainment Area Fine Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan for Attainment of 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 57183-57193 2017-25960 Pesticide Petitions: a-Methyl Mannoside for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities, 57193-57194 2017-26093 NOTICES Certain New Chemicals: Receipt and Status Information for September 2017, 57253-57261 2017-26088 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments, 57115-57117 2017-25837 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments, 57117-57119 2017-25838 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Embraer S.A. Airplanes, 57172-57174 2017-25888 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Rate-of-Return Reform, 57161-57162 2017-25949 Wireless Emergency Alerts: Emergency Alert System, 57158-57161 2017-25673 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57261-57265 2017-25951 2017-25952 2017-25954 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Agency Relocation, 57265 2017-25950 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 57265 2017-26207 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 57249-57250 2017-25997 Complaints: Epsilon Trading, LLC, Chevron Products Co., Valero Marketing and Supply Co. v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 57247 2017-25999 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Paiute Pipeline Co.; 2018 Expansion Project, 57251-57252 2017-26000 Spire STL Pipeline LLC, 57249 2017-25998 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Midship Pipeline Co., LLC, Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project, 57248-57249 2017-26031 Hydroelectric Applications: City of Hailey, ID, 57253 2017-26034 Sugar River Power LLC, 57246-57247 2017-26035 Town of Canton, CT, 57250-57251 2017-26036 License Transfer Applications: Roseburg Resources Co., Mega Renewables; Shasta Cascade Timberlands LLC, 57252 2017-26033 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 57248 2017-26001 Staff Attendances, 57252 2017-26032 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 57265 2017-26054 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. and CrossAmerica Partners LP, 57265-57267 2017-26012 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, First Revision, 57288-57289 2017-26041 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices: Reclassification of Single-Use Female Condom, to be Renamed Single-Use Internal Condom, 57174-57180 2017-26011 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Establishing and Maintaining Lists of United States Manufacturers/Processors with Interest in Exporting Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition-Regulated Products to China, 57282-57284 2017-26042 Fiscal Year 2017 Performance Review Board Members, 57279 2017-26015 Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards: Recognition List Number: 048, 57281-57282 2017-26043 Patent Infringement Complaints Filed Against a Biosimilar Applicant, 57279 2017-26013 Site Visit Training Program for Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Staff, 57280 2017-26055 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 57326-57327 2017-26019 2017-26022 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Qualified Products Lists for Fire Chemicals for Wildland Fire Management, 57200-57201 2017-25963 Timber Sale Contract Operations and Administration, 57199-57200 2017-25958 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction Contracts, 57268-57269 2017-26046 Past Performance Information, 57270-57271 2017-26045 Reporting and Use of Information Concerning Integrity and Performance of Recipients of Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 57267-57268 2017-25957 System for Award Management Registration Requirements for Prime Grant Recipients, 57271 2017-25948 Zero Burden Information Collection Reports, 57271-57272 2017-26092 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Otay Mesa USDA Plant Inspection Station, 57269-57270 2017-25956 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reporting for HUD Research, Evaluation, and Demonstration Cooperative Agreements, 57288 2017-25973 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Denials of Export Privileges: Mahan Airways, 57203-57205 2017-25964 Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2019-2021 IMLS Grant Application Forms, 57299 2017-25959 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57327-57329 2017-26002 2017-26004 2017-26005 Charter Renewals: Advisory Group to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 57328 2017-26003 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57205 2017-26081 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 57205-57207 2017-26069 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 57209-57210 2017-26065 Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea, 57210-57212 2017-26071 Monosodium Glutamate from Indonesia, 57221-57223 2017-26063 Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 57219-57221 2017-26070 Stainless Steel Bar from Spain, 57208-57209 2017-26064 Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness, 57207-57208 2017-26021 Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments; Applications, 57212-57213 2017-26067 Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments; Applications: Yale School of Medicine, 57213-57214 2017-26066 Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations: Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China, 57214-57219 2017-26068 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, 57290-57291 2017-26008 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, 57291 2017-26007 Justice Department Justice Department See

Justice Programs Office

See

National Institute of Justice

PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act; Implementation, 57181-57183 2017-25993 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 57291-57295 2017-25994
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Crime Victimization Survey, 57295 2017-26029 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Disaster Unemployment Assistance Activities Report, 57296-57297 2017-26090 Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report, 57298-57299 2017-26091 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, 57297-57298 2017-26073 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Procurements Under Services and Construction Contracts, 57268-57269 2017-26046 Past Performance Information, 57270-57271 2017-26045 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Institute Justice National Institute of Justice NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Survey on Correctional Contraband, 57295-57296 2017-26074 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 57285 2017-25981 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 57284 2017-25982 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 57284-57286 2017-25984 2017-25985 National Institute of Nursing Research, 57286 2017-25986 National Institute on Aging, 57286 2017-25983 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 57162-57163 2017-26044 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Saltwater Angler Registry, 57224-57225 2017-26025 West Coast Region Gear Identification Requirements, 57223-57224 2017-26023 West Coast Region Vessel Identification Requirements, 57224 2017-26024 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57299-57301 2017-26028 Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 57301 2017-26030 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions and Combined Licenses; Amendments: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Clarification of Raceway and Raceway System Designations, 57302-57304 2017-25966 License Amendment Applications: Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Rancho Seco Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 57301-57302 2017-25975 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 57304 2017-26075 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement, 57304 2017-26048 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 57304 2017-26047 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57316-57317, 57320-57321 2017-25976 2017-25977 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 57305-57306 2017-25988 Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., 57317-57320 2017-25991 Cboe Exchange, Inc., 57313-57316 2017-25987 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 57321-57322 2017-25992 NYSE American LLC, 57322-57325 2017-25990 The Options Clearing Corp., 57306-57313 2017-25989 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Palmyra: Loss and Remembrance Exhibition, 57325-57326 2017-25947 Guidance on Specified Persons under Section 231 of the Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017, 57325 2017-26087 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities: List of Facilities that Meet Minimum Standards to Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 57286-57288 2017-26016 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

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.

82 231 Monday, December 4, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 710 [Docket No. AU-RM-17-PACNM] RIN 1992-AA56 Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its regulations which set forth the policies and procedures for resolving questions concerning eligibility for DOE access authorization. The revisions update appendix A, and related text, with the most current national standards for determining eligibility for access to classified matter and special nuclear material, and delete references to Executive Order 10450, which was revoked pursuant to Executive Order 13764, dated January 17, 2017.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 3, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Departmental Personnel Security, (202) 586-3249, [email protected], or Christina Pak, Office of the General Counsel, (202) 586-4114, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background II. Section-by-Section Analysis III. Procedural Analysis A. Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act B. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 C. Review Under Executive Order 12988 D. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act E. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act F. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 L. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy M. Congressional Notification I. Background

The Department of Energy is publishing this final rule in order to ensure it contains the most current national standards for determining access to classified matter and special nuclear material and to ensure listed authorities are still valid.

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 710 contained the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (Adjudicative Guidelines), originally issued in 1997. These were included because they were the standard to which all such access eligibility determinations within the Department of Energy were rendered. On December 10, 2016, the Director of National Intelligence, in his role as Security Executive Agent, signed Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, which became effective June 8, 2017. The standards enumerated in SEAD 4 supersede the former standards. This final rule now includes SEAD 4 as appendix A. Also, Executive Order (E.O.) 10450, Security Requirements for Government Employees, issued April 27, 1953, has historically been cited as one of the authorities within the rule. E.O. 10450 was revoked pursuant to E.O. 13764 of January 17, 2017. This rule deletes references to E.O. 10450.

Laws, regulations and directives which may apply to part 710 include, but are not limited to: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954; Executive Order 13764 (81 FR 8115, January 23, 2017) Executive Order 13467 (73 FR 38103), June 30, 2008; Executive Order 12968 (60 FR 40245, August 2, 1995, as amended); Executive Order 13526 (75 FR 707, January 5, 2010); Executive Order 10865 (25 FR 1583, February 24, 1960, as amended); Presidential Policy Directive 19 (October 10, 2012).

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

DOE amends 10 CFR part 710 as follows:

1. In the contents section, appendix A has been revised to reflect it now contains Security Executive Agency Directive 4—National Security Adjudicative Guidelines.

2. In the contents section, under “Authority”, reference to E.O. 10450 has been deleted.

3. Section 710.1 “Purpose” deletes references to E.O. 10450 and the former Adjudicative Guidelines and replaces them with current citations.

4. Section 710.2 “Scope” removes reference to the Adjudicative Guidelines.

5. Section 710.3 “Reference” replaces “Adjudicative Guidelines” with “National Security Adjudicative Guidelines.”

6. Section 710.7 “Application of the Adjudicative Guidelines”, is retitled “Application of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines.”

7. Section 710.7(b) replaces “Adjudicative Guidelines” with “National Security Adjudicative Guidelines.”

8. Appendix A is retitled “SEAD 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines” and its content is changed to delete the former Adjudicative Guidelines and replace with the current SEAD 4 standards.

III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the Federal Register unless certain exceptions apply. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). These exceptions include rules of agency procedure or practice, as well as rules for which the agency finds good cause to waive notice and comment as unnecessary, impracticable or contrary to the public interest. Id. This rule amends DOE regulations that set forth the policies and procedures for resolving questions concerning eligibility for DOE access authorization. Specifically, the revisions update Appendix A, and related text, with the most current national standards for determining eligibility for access to classified matter and special nuclear material, and delete references to Executive Order 10450, which was revoked pursuant to Executive Order 13764. The rule provides the means by which DOE determines eligibility for access to its own data—classified matter and special nuclear material. As such, the rule is one of agency procedure or practice exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA. In addition, the Department has no discretion in adopting the guidelines, which by their terms are “applicable to any executive branch agency authorized or designated to conduct adjudications of covered individuals to determine eligibility for initial or continued access to classified national security information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position.” (See SEAD 4, Section C. Applicability.) The new SEAD 4 standards also do not differ substantively from the Adjudicative Guidelines. SEAD 4 continues to set forth 13 criteria (Guidelines A to M) that may raise a security concern, but was revised to add or remove conditions that could raise and/or mitigate security concerns. Variations between the two versions are not expected to result in differing access eligibility determinations depending upon which standard was employed. For these reasons, DOE also finds that notice and comment on the adoption of SEAD 4 is also unnecessary, impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The 30-day delay in effective date specified in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is waived for these same reasons.

B. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

This final rule has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this rule is not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget.

DOE has also reviewed the regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. DOE believes that this rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits.

C. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction.

With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this regulation meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

D. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” (67 FR 53461, August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site at http://www.gc.doe.gov.

This rule amends procedures that apply to the determination of eligibility of individuals for access to classified information and access to special nuclear material. The rule applies to individuals, and would not apply to “small entities,” as that term is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, as stated above, the Department has no discretion in adopting the guidelines; it is the guidelines themselves that impose any impact on affected individuals. As a result, the rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, DOE certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

E. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

F. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

DOE has concluded that promulgation of this rule falls into a class of actions which would not individually or cumulatively have significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this rule is categorically excluded from NEPA review because the amendments to the previous rule are strictly procedural (categorical exclusion A6). Therefore, this rule does not require an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA.

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) generally requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of costs and benefits of any rule imposing a Federal Mandate with costs to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. This rulemaking does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule or policy that may affect family well being. This rule, has no impact on family well-being. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution and use. This rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under implementing guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

L. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

The Secretary of Energy has approved issuance of this rule.

M. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 710

Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Government contracts, Government employees, Nuclear energy.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 31, 2017. Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, DOE amends part 710 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

PART 710—PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED MATTER AND SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL 1. The authority citation for part 710 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 2165, 2201, 5815, 7101, et seq., 7383h-l; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; E.O. 10865, 3 CFR 1959-1963 comp., p. 398, as amended, 3 CFR Chap. IV; E.O. 13526, 3 CFR 2010 Comp., pp. 298-327 (or successor orders); E.O. 12968, 3 CFR 1995 Comp., p. 391.

2. Section 710.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 710.1 Purpose.

(b) This part implements: Executive Order 12968, 60 FR 40245 (August 2, 1995), as amended; Executive Order 13526, 75 FR 707 (January 5, 2010) as amended; Executive Order 10865, 25 FR 1583 (February 24, 1960), as amended; and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, issued as Security Executive Agent Directive 4 by the Director of National Intelligence on December 10, 2016.

3. Section 710.2 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
§ 710.2 Scope.

The procedures outlined in this rule apply to determinations of eligibility for access authorization for:

4. Revise § 710.3 to read as follows:
§ 710.3 Reference.

The National Security Adjudicative Guidelines are set forth in Appendix A to this part.

5. Section 710.7 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 710.7 Application of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines.

(b) All such determinations shall be based upon the application of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (Adjudicative Guidelines), or any successor national standard issued under authority of the President.

6. Appendix A is revised to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 710—Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (June 8, 2017)

(The following guidelines, included in this part for reference purposes only, are reproduced by DOE with minor formatting changes to comply with the Document Drafting Handbook issued by the Office of the Federal Register. The original guidelines were signed by James Clapper, Security Executive Agent, on December 10, 2016, with an effective date 180 days after signature (June 8, 2017). For any discrepancies between the original guidelines and the guidelines published in this appendix, the original guidelines control.)

A. Authority: The National Security Act of 1947, as amended; Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), as amended; Executive Order (E.O.) 10450, Security Requirements for Government Employment, as amended; EO 12968, Access to Classified Information, as amended; E.O. 13467, Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information; E.O. 13549, Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal and Private Sector Entities; Performance Accountability Council memorandum, Assignment of Functions Relating to Coverage of Contractor Employee Fitness in the Federal Investigative Standards, 6 December 2012; and other applicable provisions of law.

B. Purpose: This Security Executive Agent (SecEA) Directive establishes the single, common adjudicative criteria for all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The Guidelines reflected herein supersede all previously issued national security adjudicative criteria or guidelines.

C. Applicability: This Directive applies to any executive branch agency authorized or designated to conduct adjudications of covered individuals to determine eligibility for initial or continued access to classified national security information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position.

D. Definitions: As used in this Directive, the following terms have the meanings set forth in the following paragraphs 1 through 8:

1. Agency: Any “Executive agency” as defined in Section 105 of Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), including the “military departments,” as defined in Section 102 of Title 5, U.S.C. and any other entity within the Executive Branch that comes into possession of classified information or has positions designated as sensitive.

2. Authorized adjudicative agency: An agency authorized by law, executive order, or designation by the SecEA to determine eligibility for access to classified information in accordance with E.O. 12968, as amended, or eligibility to hold a sensitive position.

3. Authorized investigative agency: An agency authorized by law, executive order, or designation by the SecEA to conduct a background investigation of individuals who are proposed for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position or to ascertain whether such individuals continue to satisfy the criteria for retaining access to such information or eligibility to hold such positions.

4. Classified national security information or classified information: Information that has been determined pursuant to E.O. 13526 or any predecessor or successor order, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure.

5. Covered individual:

a. A person who performs work for or on behalf of the executive branch or who seeks to perform work for or on behalf of the executive branch, but does not include the President or (except to the extent otherwise directed by the President) employees of the President under 3 U.S.C. 105 or 107, the Vice President, or (except to the extent otherwise directed by the Vice President) employees of the Vice President under 3 U.S.C. 106 or annual legislative branch appropriations acts;

b. A person who performs work for or on behalf of a state, local, tribal, or private sector entity as defined in E.O. 13549 requiring eligibility for access to classified information;

c. A person working in or for the legislative or judicial branches requiring eligibility for access to classified information and the investigation or determination is conducted by the executive branch, but does not include members of Congress; Justices of the Supreme Court; and Federal judges appointed by the President.

d. Covered individuals are not limited to government employees and include all persons, not excluded under paragraphs D.5.a., b., or c. of this appendix, who require eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, including, but not limited to, contractors, subcontractors, licensees, certificate holders, grantees, experts, consultants, and government employees.

6. Foreign Intelligence Entity: Known or suspected foreign state or non-state organizations or persons that conduct intelligence activities to acquire U.S. information, block or impair U.S. intelligence collection, influence U.S. policy, or disrupt U.S. systems and programs. The term includes foreign intelligence and security services and international terrorists.

7. National Security Eligibility: Eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, to include access to sensitive compartmented information, restricted data, and controlled or special access program information.

8. Sensitive Position: Any position within or in support of an agency in which the occupant could bring about, by virtue of the nature of the position, a material adverse effect on the national security regardless of whether the occupant has access to classified information, and regardless of whether the occupant is an employee, military service member, or contractor.

E. Policy:

1. The National Security Adjudicative Guidelines in annex A to this appendix shall be used by all authorized adjudicative agencies when rendering a determination for initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or initial or continued eligibility to hold a sensitive position.

2. Annex B to this appendix sets forth statutory restrictions on agencies making certain eligibility determinations for access to classified information, as well as waiver and congressional reporting requirements. These amendments to the IRTPA are commonly referred to as the Bond Amendment. By definition, the risk to national security is equivalent for covered individuals with access to classified information and covered individuals occupying a sensitive position. Occupants of sensitive positions could bring about, by virtue of the nature of the position, a material adverse effect on the national security regardless of whether the occupant has access to classified information. Due to the equivalent adverse effect on the national security and to ensure uniformity, consistency, and reciprocity of national security background investigations and adjudications, the statutory restrictions imposed by the Bond Amendment are extended to apply to all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. Authorized adjudicative agencies shall maintain a record of the number and type of meritorious waivers granted under Bond Amendment criteria, to include the rationale for each waiver, and shall report this data annually to the SecEA in advance of the annual report to Congress. Authorized adjudicative agencies will also maintain a record of all disqualifications due to Bond Amendment criteria.

3. Exceptions, as provided for in annex C to this appendix, shall be used when a favorable adjudicative decision to grant initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or to hold a sensitive position is made, despite failure to meet adjudicative or investigative standards.

4. Eligibility shall be determined by appropriately trained adjudicative personnel through the evaluation of all information bearing on an individual's loyalty and allegiance to the United States, including any information relevant to strength of character, honesty, discretion, sound judgment, reliability, ability to protect classified or sensitive information, and trustworthiness. Eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to occupy a sensitive position shall only be granted when the evaluation of all such information demonstrates that such eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of the United States; any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the national security.

5. All adjudicative determinations, including any associated exceptions, shall be recorded in either Scattered Castles, the Joint Personnel Adjudication System within the Department of Defense, or the Central Verification System database within U.S. Office of Personnel Management or successor databases, unless authorized by the SecEA to withhold information from the database for national security purposes.

6. When an adjudicative determination is made to deny or revoke eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, review proceedings, to the extent they are made available in E.O. 12968, as amended, Part 5, shall be afforded covered individuals at a minimum.

7. The agency with adjudicative authority remains responsible for the final determination.

8. Agencies shall update internal policies and replace existing national security adjudicative criteria or guidelines with the guidelines in this appendix A no later than June 8, 2017.

9. This Directive is not intended to, and does not, create any right to administrative or judicial review, or any other right or benefit, or trust responsibility substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

F. Effective Date: This Directive becomes effective June 8, 2017.

Annex A to Appendix A to Part 710—National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position 1. Introduction

(a) The following National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (“guidelines”) are established as the single common criteria for all U.S. Government civilian and military personnel, consultants, contractors, licensees, certificate holders or grantees and their employees, and other individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, to include access to sensitive compartmented information, restricted data, and controlled or special access program information (hereafter referred to as “national security eligibility”). These guidelines shall be used by all Executive Branch Agencies when rendering any final national security eligibility determination.

(b) National security eligibility determinations take into account a person's stability, trustworthiness, reliability, discretion, character, honesty, and judgment. Individuals must be unquestionably loyal to the United States. No amount of oversight or security procedures can replace the self-discipline and integrity of an individual entrusted to protect the nation's secrets or occupying a sensitive position. When a person's life history shows evidence of unreliability or untrustworthiness, questions arise as to whether the individual can be relied upon and trusted to exercise the responsibility necessary for working in an environment where protecting the national security is paramount.

(c) The U.S. Government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in making a national security eligibility determination. No negative inference concerning eligibility under these guidelines may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling. No adverse action concerning these guidelines may be taken solely on the basis of polygraph examination technical calls in the absence of adjudicatively significant information.

(d) In accordance with E.O. 12968, as amended, eligibility for covered individuals shall be granted only when facts and circumstances indicate that eligibility is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and any doubt shall be resolved in favor of national security.

2. The Adjudicative Process

(a) The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period and a careful weighing of a number of variables of an individual's life to make an affirmative determination that the individual is an acceptable security risk. This is known as the whole-person concept. All available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a national security eligibility determination.

(b) Each case must be judged on its own merits, and the final determination remains the responsibility of the authorized adjudicative agency. Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.

(c) The ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing of national security eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the following guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person.

(1) GUIDELINE A: Allegiance to the United States (2) GUIDELINE B: Foreign Influence (3) GUIDELINE C: Foreign Preference (4) GUIDELINE D: Sexual Behavior (5) GUIDELINE E: Personal Conduct (6) GUIDELINE F: Financial Considerations (7) GUIDELINE G: Alcohol Consumption (8) GUIDELINE H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse (9) GUIDELINE I: Psychological Conditions (10) GUIDELINE J: Criminal Conduct (11) GUIDELINE K: Handling Protected Information (12) GUIDELINE L: Outside Activities (13) GUIDELINE M: Use of Information Technology

(d) In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the adjudicator should consider the following factors:

(1) The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;

(2) The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;

(3) The frequency and recency of the conduct;

(4) The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct;

(5) The extent to which participation is voluntary;

(6) The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes;

(7) The motivation for the conduct;

(8) The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and

(9) The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

(e) Although adverse information concerning a single criterion may not be sufficient for an unfavorable eligibility determination, the individual may be found ineligible if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or unstable behavior. However, a single criterion may be sufficient to make an unfavorable eligibility determination even in the absence of a recent occurrence or a recurring pattern. Notwithstanding the whole-person concept, pursuit of further investigation may be terminated by an appropriate adjudicative agency in the face of reliable, significant, disqualifying, adverse information.

(f) When information of security concern becomes known about an individual who is currently eligible for access to classified information or eligible to hold a sensitive position, the adjudicator should consider whether the individual:

(1) Voluntarily reported the information;

(2) Was truthful and complete in responding to questions;

(3) Sought assistance and followed professional guidance, where appropriate;

(4) Resolved or appears likely to favorably resolve the security concern;

(5) Has demonstrated positive changes in behavior; and

(6) Should have his or her national security eligibility suspended pending final adjudication of the information.

(g) If after evaluating information of security concern, the adjudicator decides the information is serious enough to warrant a recommendation of denial or revocation of the national security eligibility, but the specific risk to national security can be managed with appropriate mitigation measures, an adjudicator may recommend approval to grant initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or to hold a sensitive position with an exception as defined in Appendix C of this document.

(h) If after evaluating information of security concern, the adjudicator decides that the information is not serious enough to warrant a recommendation of denial or revocation of the national security eligibility, an adjudicator may recommend approval with a warning that future incidents of a similar nature or other incidents of adjudicative concern may result in revocation of national security eligibility.

(i) It must be noted that the adjudicative process is predicated upon individuals providing relevant information pertaining to their background and character for use in investigating and adjudicating their national security eligibility. Any incident of intentional material falsification or purposeful non-cooperation with security processing is of significant concern. Such conduct raises questions about an individual's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness and may be predictive of their willingness or ability to protect the national security.

Guidelines Guideline A: Allegiance to the United States

3. The Concern. The willingness to safeguard classified or sensitive information is in doubt if there is any reason to suspect an individual's allegiance to the United States. There is no positive test for allegiance, but there are negative indicators. These include participation in or support for acts against the United States or placing the welfare or interests of another country above those of the United States. Finally, the failure to adhere to the laws of the United States may be relevant if the violation of law is harmful to stated U.S. interests. An individual who engages in acts against the United States or provides support or encouragement to those who do has already demonstrated willingness to compromise national security.

4. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Involvement in, support of, training to commit, or advocacy of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, or sedition against the United States;

(b) Association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing, any of the above acts; and

(c) Association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence, or use any other illegal or unconstitutional means, in an effort to:

(1) Overthrow or influence the U.S. Government or any state or local government;

(2) Prevent Federal, state, or local government personnel from performing their official duties;

(3) Gain retribution for perceived wrongs caused by the Federal, state, or local government; and

(4) Prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state.

5. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) The individual was unaware of the unlawful aims of the individual or organization and severed ties upon learning of these;

(b) The individual's involvement was humanitarian and permitted under U.S. law;

(c) Involvement in the above activities occurred for only a short period of time and was attributable to curiosity or academic interest; and

(d) The involvement or association with such activities occurred under such unusual circumstances, or so much time has elapsed, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or allegiance.

Guideline B: Foreign Influence

6. The Concern. Foreign contacts and interests, including, but not limited to, business, financial, and property interests, are a national security concern if they result in divided allegiance. They may also be a national security concern if they create circumstances in which the individual may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way inconsistent with U.S. interests or otherwise made vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. Assessment of foreign contacts and interests should consider the country in which the foreign contact or interest is located, including, but not limited to, considerations such as whether it is known to target U.S. citizens to obtain classified or sensitive information or is associated with a risk of terrorism.

7. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Contact, regardless of method, with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;

(b) Connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to protect classified or sensitive information or technology and the individual's desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information or technology;

(c) Failure to report or fully disclose, when required, association with a foreign person, group, government, or country;

(d) Counterintelligence information, whether classified or unclassified, that indicates the individual's access to classified information or eligibility for a sensitive position may involve unacceptable risk to national security;

(e) Shared living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;

(f) Substantial business, financial, or property interests in a foreign country, or in any foreignowned or foreign-operated business that could subject the individual to a heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation or personal conflict of interest;

(g) Unauthorized association with a suspected or known agent, associate, or employee of a foreign intelligence entity;

(h) Indications that representatives or nationals from a foreign country are acting to increase the vulnerability of the individual to possible future exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; and

(i) Conduct, especially while traveling or residing outside the U.S., that may make the individual vulnerable to exploitation, pressure, or coercion by a foreign person, group, government, or country.

8. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) The nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the United States;

(b) There is no conflict of interest, either because the individual's sense of loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, or allegiance to the group, government, or country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States, that the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest;

(c) Contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign influence or exploitation;

(d) The foreign contacts and activities are on U.S. Government business or are approved by the agency head or designee;

(e) The individual has promptly complied with existing agency requirements regarding the reporting of contacts, requests, or threats from persons, groups, or organizations from a foreign country; and

(f) The value or routine nature of the foreign business, financial, or property interests is such that they are unlikely to result in a conflict and could not be used effectively to influence, manipulate, or pressure the individual.

Guideline C: Foreign Preference

9. The Concern. When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States, then he or she may provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States. Foreign involvement raises concerns about an individual's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness when it is in conflict with U.S. national interests or when the individual acts to conceal it. By itself, the fact that a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country is not disqualifying without an objective showing of such conflict or attempt at concealment. The same is true for a U.S. citizen's exercise of any right or privilege of foreign citizenship and any action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign citizenship.

10. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country;

(b) Failure to report, or fully disclose when required, to an appropriate security official, the possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the United States;

(c) Failure to use a U.S. passport when entering or exiting the U.S.;

(d) Participation in foreign activities, including but not limited to:

(1) Assuming or attempting to assume any type of employment, position, or political office in a foreign government or military organization; and

(2) Otherwise acting to serve the interests of a foreign person, group, organization, or government in any way that conflicts with U.S. national security interests;

(e) Using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country in violation of U.S. law; and

(f) An act of expatriation from the United States such as declaration of intent to renounce U.S. citizenship, whether through words or actions.

11. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) The foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests;

(b) Dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference;

(c) The individual has expressed a willingness to renounce the foreign citizenship that is in conflict with U.S. national security interests;

(d) The exercise of the rights, privileges, or obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen;

(e) The exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern;

(f) The foreign preference, if detected, involves a foreign country, entity, or association that poses a low national security risk;

(g) Civil employment or military service was authorized under U.S. law, or the employment or service was otherwise consented to as required by U.S. law; and

(h) Any potentially disqualifying activity took place after receiving the approval by the agency head or designee.

Guideline D: Sexual Behavior

12. The Concern. Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense; reflects a lack of judgment or discretion; or may subject the individual to undue influence of coercion, exploitation, or duress. These issues, together or individually, may raise questions about an individual's judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Sexual behavior includes conduct occurring in person or via audio, visual, electronic, or written transmission. No adverse inference concerning the standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.

13. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted;

(b) A pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual behavior that the individual is unable to stop;

(c) Sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress; and

(d) Sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment.

14. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) The behavior occurred prior to or during adolescence and there is no evidence of subsequent conduct of a similar nature;

(b) The sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;

(c) The behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress;

(d) The sexual behavior is strictly private, consensual, and discreet; and

(e) The individual has successfully completed an appropriate program of treatment, or is currently enrolled in one, has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan, and/or has received a favorable prognosis from a qualified mental health professional indicating the behavior is readily controllable with treatment.

Guideline E: Personal Conduct

15. The Concern. Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility:

(a) Refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph examination, if authorized and required; and

(b) Refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.

16. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;

(b) Deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other official government representative;

(c) Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information;

(d) Credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of:

(1) Untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or government protected information;

(2) Any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior;

(3) A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and

(4) Evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer's time or resources;

(e) Personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct includes:

(1) Engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person's personal, professional, or community standing;

(2) While in another country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country;

(3) While in another country, engaging in any activity that, while legal there, is illegal in the United States;

(f) Violation of a written or recorded commitment made by the individual to the employer as a condition of employment; and

(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activity.

17. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;

(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;

(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;

(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress;

(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability; and

(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased, or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.

Guideline F: Financial Considerations

18. The Concern. Failure to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage.

19. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Inability to satisfy debts;

(b) Unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so;

(c) A history of not meeting financial obligations;

(d) Deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, expense account fraud, mortgage fraud, filing deceptive loan statements and other intentional financial breaches of trust;

(e) Consistent spending beyond one's means or frivolous or irresponsible spending, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, a history of late payments or of non-payment, or other negative financial indicators;

(f) Failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required;

(g) Unexplained affluence, as shown by a lifestyle or standard of living, increase in net worth, or money transfers that are inconsistent with known legal sources of income;

(h) Borrowing money or engaging in significant financial transactions to fund gambling or pay gambling debts; and

(i) Concealing gambling losses, family conflict, or other problems caused by gambling.

20. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(c) The individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

(d) The individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;

(e) The individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue;

(f) The affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and

(g) The individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.

Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption

21. The Concern. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness.

22. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual's alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;

(b) Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the welfare and safety of others, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;

(c) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;

(d) Diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder;

(e) The failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed;

(f) Alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder; and

(g) Failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.

23. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;

(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations;

(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment program; and

(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.

Guideline H: Drug Involvement 1 and Substance Misuse

1 Reference annex B to this appendix regarding statutory requirements contained in Public Law 110-118 (Bond Amendment) applicable to this guideline.

24. The Concern. The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed in this paragraph.

25. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Any substance misuse (see definition listed in paragraph 24);

(b) Testing positive for an illegal drug;

(c) Illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;

(d) Diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of substance use disorder;

(e) Failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program prescribed by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional;

(f) Any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a sensitive position; and

(g) Expressed intent to continue drug involvement and substance misuse, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse.

26. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) The individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to:

(1) Disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;

(2) Changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and

(3) Providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility;

(c) Abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; and

(d) Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.

Guideline I: Psychological Conditions 2

2 Reference annex B to this appendix regarding statutory requirements contained in Public Law 110-118 (Bond Amendment) applicable to this guideline.

27. The Concern. Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government, should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information under this guideline and an opinion, including prognosis, should be sought. No negative inference concerning the standards in this guideline may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling.

28. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, not covered under any other guideline and that may indicate an emotional, mental, or personality condition, including, but not limited to, irresponsible, violent, self-harm, suicidal, paranoid, manipulative, impulsive, chronic lying, deceitful, exploitative, or bizarre behaviors;

(b) An opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness;

(c) Voluntary or involuntary inpatient hospitalization;

(d) Failure to follow a prescribed treatment plan related to a diagnosed psychological/psychiatric condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, including, but not limited to, failure to take prescribed medication or failure to attend required counseling sessions; and

(e) Pathological gambling, the associated behaviors of which may include unsuccessful attempts to stop gambling; gambling for increasingly higher stakes, usually in an attempt to cover losses; concealing gambling losses; borrowing or stealing money to fund gambling or pay gambling debts; and family conflict resulting from gambling.

29. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;

(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional;

(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual's previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation;

(d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;

(e) There is no indication of a current problem.

Guideline J: Criminal Conduct 3

3 Reference annex B to this appendix regarding statutory requirements contained in Public Law 110-118 (Bond Amendment) applicable to this guideline.

30. The Concern. Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.

31. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) A pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual's judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness;

(b) Evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted;

(c) Individual is currently on parole or probation;

(d) Violation or revocation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-mandated rehabilitation program; and

(e) Discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces for reasons less than “Honorable.”

32. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) So much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) The individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are no longer present in the person's life;

(c) No reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and

(d) There is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.

Guideline K: Handling Protected Information

33. The Concern. Deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for handling protected information—which includes classified and other sensitive government information, and proprietary information—raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern.

34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons, including, but not limited to, personal or business contacts, the media, or persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences;

(b) Collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location;

(c) Loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling protected information, including images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium;

(d) Inappropriate efforts to obtain or view protected information outside one's need to know;

(e) Copying or modifying protected information in an unauthorized manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings;

(f) Viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual's need-to-know;

(g) Any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information;

(h) Negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management; and

(i) Failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the national security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.

35. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) So much time has elapsed since the behavior, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) The individual responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibilities;

(c) The security violations were due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions; and

(d) The violation was inadvertent, it was promptly reported, there is no evidence of compromise, and it does not suggest a pattern.

Guideline L: Outside Activities

36. The Concern. Involvement in certain types of outside employment or activities is of security concern if it poses a conflict of interest with an individual's security responsibilities and could create an increased risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified or sensitive information.

37. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Any employment or service, whether compensated or volunteer, with:

(1) The government of a foreign country;

(2) Any foreign national, organization, or other entity;

(3) A representative of any foreign interest; and

(4) Any foreign, domestic, or international organization or person engaged in analysis, discussion, or publication of material on intelligence, defense, foreign affairs, or protected technology; and

(b) Failure to report or fully disclose an outside activity when this is required.

38. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) Evaluation of the outside employment or activity by the appropriate security or counterintelligence office indicates that it does not pose a conflict with an individual's security responsibilities or with the national security interests of the United States; and

(b) The individual terminated the employment or discontinued the activity upon being notified that it was in conflict with his or her security responsibilities.

Guideline M: Use of Information Technology

39. The Concern. Failure to comply with rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, calling into question the willingness or ability to properly protect sensitive systems, networks, and information. Information Technology includes any computer-based, mobile, or wireless device used to create, store, access, process, manipulate, protect, or move information. This includes any component, whether integrated into a larger system or not, such as hardware, software, or firmware, used to enable or facilitate these operations.

40. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) Unauthorized entry into any information technology system;

(b) Unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an information technology system or any data in such a system;

(c) Use of any information technology system to gain unauthorized access to another system or to a compartmented area within the same system;

(d) Downloading, storing, or transmitting classified, sensitive, proprietary, or other protected information on or to any unauthorized information technology system;

(e) Unauthorized use of any information technology system;

(f) Introduction, removal, or duplication of hardware, firmware, software, or media to or from any information technology system when prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations or when otherwise not authorized;

(g) Negligence or lax security practices in handling information technology that persists despite counseling by management; and

(h) Any misuse of information technology, whether deliberate or negligent, that results in damage to the national security.

41. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) So much time has elapsed since the behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) The misuse was minor and done solely in the interest of organizational efficiency and effectiveness;

(c) The conduct was unintentional or inadvertent and was followed by a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the situation and by notification to appropriate personnel; and

(d) The misuse was due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions.

Annex B to Appendix A to Part 710—Bond Amendment Guidance

On January 28, 2008, Congress amended the IRTPA of 2004, adding statutory restrictions on certain eligibility determinations and establishing waiver and congressional reporting requirements. These modifications are collectively referred to as the “Bond Amendments” and were made effective on January 1, 2008.4 For the reasons identified in paragraph E.2 of this appendix, application of the Bond Amendment's statutory restrictions will be applied to all adjudications covered under this Directive.

4 IRTPA of 2004 section 3002, 50 U.S.C. 3343.

1. Prohibition: Heads of agencies are prohibited from granting or renewing national security eligibility for any covered individual who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance or is an addict as defined. If an authorized adjudicative agency has a case pending review that involves an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict, the statutory prohibition must be applied and the individual will receive the agency's established administrative review procedures. A meritorious waiver may not be authorized with reference to this prohibition. For purposes of this prohibition:

(a) An “addict” is any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare; or is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.

(b) A “controlled substance” means any “controlled substance” as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802.

2. Disqualification: The Bond Amendment also contains disqualification provisions which apply only to those covered individuals seeking access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), Special Access Programs (SAP), or Restricted Data (RD). Heads of agencies may not grant or renew access to SCI, SAP, or RD to a covered individual who:

(a) Has been convicted in any court of the U.S. of a crime, was sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, and was incarcerated as a result of that sentence for not less than one year;

(b) Has been discharged or dismissed from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; or

(c) Is determined to be mentally incompetent; an individual is “mentally incompetent” when he or she has been declared mentally incompetent as determined by competency proceedings conducted in a court or administrative agency with proper jurisdiction.

3. Waiver Standard and Procedures: When a disqualifier reflected in paragraphs 2(a) through (c) of this annex B exists, the adjudicator will proceed with the adjudication using the appropriate mitigation conditions found in these adjudicative guidelines. If the adjudicator would have arrived at a favorable decision but for the Bond Amendment disqualification, a meritorious waiver may be appropriate.

(a) Meritorious waivers will be considered an “Exception” to the adjudicative guidelines and will be annotated as a “Waiver” in the adjudicative decision recorded in the appropriate databases listed in paragraph E.5 of this appendix. Adjudicators will provide a detailed justification for the meritorious waiver in the final adjudicative report.

(b) If, after applying the appropriate mitigating factors listed in these adjudicative guidelines, a meritorious waiver is not appropriate, the SCI, SAP, or RD access will be denied or revoked with a written explanation that cites the adjudicative guidelines applied and the Bond Amendment disqualifier. The authorized adjudicative agency's established administrative review procedures shall be followed in all such cases.

(c) Each authorized adjudicative agency shall maintain a record of the number and type of meritorious waivers granted, to include the rationale for each waiver, and shall report this data annually to the SecEA in advance of the annual report to Congress. Authorized adjudicative agencies will also maintain a record of all disqualifications, broken down by type, due to Bond Amendment requirements.

4. Authorized adjudicative agencies often have no ability to predict whether the covered individual for whom national security eligibility determinations are being made will also require access to SCI, SAP, or RD. Accordingly, the guidance in paragraphs 4(a) and (b) applies to all national security adjudicative determinations:

(a) All adjudicators will determine whether any of the Bond Amendment disqualifiers in paragraphs 2(a) through (c) of this annex B apply to the case being adjudicated.

(b) If a disqualifier exists, adjudicators shall annotate that fact in one of the databases identified in paragraph E.5 of this annex B to ensure that any subsequent requests for access to SCI, SAP, or RD for the individual will undergo appropriate re-adjudication and waiver procedures in meritorious cases.

Annex C to Appendix A to Part 710—Exceptions

Exceptions are an adjudicative decision to grant initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or to hold a sensitive position despite failure to meet the full adjudicative or investigative standards. The authorized exceptions are defined below and supersede the definitions in Office of Management and Budget memorandum, Reciprocal Recognition of Existing Personnel Security Clearances, 14 November 2007.

Waiver (W): Eligibility granted or continued despite the presence of substantial issue information that would normally preclude eligibility. Approval authorities may approve a waiver only when the benefit of initial or continued eligibility clearly outweighs any security concerns. A waiver may also require conditions for eligibility as described below.

Condition (C): Eligibility granted or continued, despite the presence of issue information that can be partially but not completely mitigated, with the provision that additional security measures shall be required to mitigate the issue(s). Such measures include, but are not limited to, additional security monitoring, access restrictions, submission of periodic financial statements, or attendance at counseling sessions.

Deviation (D): Eligibility granted or continued despite either a significant gap in coverage or scope of the investigation. “Significant gap” for this purpose means either complete lack of coverage for a period of six months or longer within the most recent five years investigated or the lack of one or more relevant investigative scope components (e.g., employment checks, financial review, or a subject interview) in its entirety.

Out of Scope (O): Reinvestigation is overdue.

[FR Doc. 2017-25257 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31166; Amdt. No. 3775] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective December 4, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 4 January 2018 Tucson, AZ, Tucson Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 11L, Amdt 14A Tucson, AZ, Tucson Intl, LOC BC RWY 29R, Amdt 8A Tucson, AZ, Tucson Intl, VOR OR TACAN RWY 11L, Amdt 1B New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 11, ILS RWY 11 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 11 (CAT II), ILS RWY 11 (CAT III), Amdt 4 Greenville, SC, Greenville Downtown, RADAR-1, Amdt 13B, CANCELED Greer, SC, Greenville Spartanburg Intl, RADAR-1, Amdt 7, CANCELED Effective 1 February 2018 Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 18L, Amdt 4D Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 18R, ILS RWY 18R (CAT II), Amdt 24E Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 36L, Amdt 10C Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 36R, Amdt 2C Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, RADAR-1, Amdt 10A Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18L, Amdt 1B Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18R, Amdt 1B Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36L, Amdt 1B Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36R, Amdt 1B Huntsville, AL, Huntsville Intl-Carl T Jones Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4A Talladega, AL, Talladega Muni, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 4, Orig Talladega, AL, Talladega Muni, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 4, Amdt 1 Talladega, AL, Talladega Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2 Talladega, AL, Talladega Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2 Talladega, AL, Talladega Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 7, CANCELED El Dorado, AR, South Arkansas Rgnl at Goodwin Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A Alturas, CA, Alturas Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2 Bishop, CA, Bishop, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 12, Orig-D Bishop, CA, Bishop, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 12, Orig-E Byron, CA, Byron, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1A Chico, CA, Chico Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31R, Orig-C Half Moon Bay, CA, Half Moon Bay, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 30, Orig-C Lakeport, CA, Lampson Field, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-C Los Banos, CA, Los Banos Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-B Paso Robles, CA, Paso Robles Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-B Santa Barbara, CA, Santa Barbara Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 5B Tracy, CA, Tracy Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1A Denver, CO, Centennial, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, Amdt 10A Oxford, CT, Waterbury-Oxford, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 14B Orlando, FL, Executive, ILS OR LOC RWY 25, Amdt 1A Orlando, FL, Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 3A West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach County Park, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1 West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach County Park, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1 West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach County Park, RNAV (GPS)-B, Amdt 1 West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach County Park, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Iowa Falls, IA, Iowa Falls Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1 Iowa Falls, IA, Iowa Falls Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2 Driggs, ID, Driggs-Reed Memorial, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1A Twin Falls, ID, Joslin Field—Magic Valley Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1B Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling, IL, Chicago Executive, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3A Indianapolis, IN, Indy South Greenwood, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 Olathe, KS, New Century Aircenter, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 7A Topeka, KS, Philip Billard Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-A, CANCELED Topeka, KS, Philip Billard Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1, CANCELED Topeka, KS, Philip Billard Muni, VOR RWY 22, Amdt 21, CANCELED Deblois, ME, Deblois Flight Strip, DEBLOIS ONE Graphic DP Deblois, ME, Deblois Flight Strip, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Deblois, ME, Deblois Flight Strip, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Fremont, MI, Fremont Muni, VOR RWY 18, Orig-A, CANCELED Fremont, MI, Fremont Muni, VOR RWY 36, Amdt 7A, CANCELED Lansing, MI, Capital Region Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10R, Amdt 11B Lansing, MI, Capital Region Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28L, Amdt 27C Owosso, MI, Owosso Community, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1D Owosso, MI, Owosso Community, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1D Ray, MI, Ray Community, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-A Hutchinson, MN, Hutchinson Muni-Butler Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-B Hutchinson, MN, Hutchinson Muni-Butler Field, VOR RWY 33, Amdt 3B Aurora, MO, Jerry Sumners SR Aurora Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 16A Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, LOC BC RWY 20, Amdt 13A Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 2A Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, VOR Y RWY 20, Amdt 4A Lee's Summit, MO, Lee's Summit Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 3 Lee's Summit, MO, Lee's Summit Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 3 Lee's Summit, MO, Lee's Summit Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3 Lee's Summit, MO, Lee's Summit Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Lee's Summit, MO, Lee's Summit Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 1 Circle, MT, Circle Town County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig-B Kenansville, NC, Duplin Co, LOC/NDB RWY 23, Amdt 1A, CANCELED Beatrice, NE, Beatrice Muni, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 3 Beatrice, NE, Beatrice Muni, VOR RWY 36, Amdt 10 Hebron, NE, Hebron Muni, NDB RWY 12, Amdt 4C, CANCELED Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 5A Dunkirk, NY, Chautauqua County/Dunkirk, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Cleveland, OH, Burke Lakefront, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7 Toledo, OH, Toledo Express, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1B Toledo, OH, Toledo Express, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 2B Wooster, OH, Wayne County, VOR RWY 10, Amdt 1B Wooster, OH, Wayne County, VOR RWY 28, Orig-E Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-C Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-C Claremore, OK, Claremore Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1 Claremore, OK, Claremore Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3 Claremore, OK, Claremore Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Duncan, OK, Halliburton Field, LOC RWY 35, Amdt 5, CANCELED Duncan, OK, Halliburton Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2 Duncan, OK, Halliburton Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2 Duncan, OK, Halliburton Field, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 12, CANCELED Madras, OR, Madras Municipal, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1C Newport, OR, Newport Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1B Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7A Portland, OR, Portland Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28L, Amdt 5 Portland, OR, Portland Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28R, Amdt 17 Portland, OR, Portland Intl, RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28L, Amdt 4 Portland, OR, Portland Intl, RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28R, Amdt 4 Redmond, OR, Roberts Field, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5, Amdt 2A Redmond, OR, Roberts Field, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23, Amdt 1A Redmond, OR, Roberts Field, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 29, Amdt 2A Redmond, OR, Roberts Field, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 29, Amdt 1A Sunriver, OR, Sunriver, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 1D Bloomsburg, PA, Bloomsburg Muni, RNAV (GPS)-B, Amdt 1B Bloomsburg, PA, Bloomsburg Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 1B Mifflintown, PA, Mifflintown, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-A Pittsburgh, PA, Allegheny County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 9 Selinsgrove, PA, Penn Valley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3A Selinsgrove, PA, Penn Valley, VOR-A, Amdt 7C Shamokin, PA, Northumberland County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig-D Shamokin, PA, Northumberland County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-C Shamokin, PA, Northumberland County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A Shamokin, PA, Northumberland County, VOR RWY 8, Amdt 3E Kingstree, SC, Williamsburg Rgnl, NDB RWY 14, Amdt 4B, CANCELED Summerville, SC, Summerville, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1 Summerville, SC, Summerville, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Alpine, TX, Alpine-Casparis Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1 Alpine, TX, Alpine-Casparis Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig Baytown, TX, R W J Airpark, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A, CANCELED Cisco, TX, Gregory M Simmons Memorial, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 18, Orig Cisco, TX, Gregory M Simmons Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Laredo, TX, Laredo Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4A Fillmore, UT, Fillmore Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1A Huntington, UT, Huntington Muni, RNAV (GPS)-C, Orig-A Huntington, UT, Huntington Muni, VOR-B, Amdt 1A Nephi, UT, Nephi Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-B Ogden, UT, Ogden-Hinckley, EMONT TWO, Graphic DP Ogden, UT, Ogden-Hinckley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 1, Amdt 1B Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 2B Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, VOR RWY 1, Amdt 1B Wenatchee, WA, Pangborn Memorial, RNAV (RNP) RWY 12, Amdt 1A Wenatchee, WA, Pangborn Memorial, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 30, Amdt 1A Wenatchee, WA, Pangborn Memorial, VOR-A, Amdt 9C
[FR Doc. 2017-25837 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31167; Amdt. No. 3776] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective December 4, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC date State City Airport FDC No. FDC date Subject 4-Jan-18 NM Hobbs Lea County Rgnl 7/0612 11/6/17 LOC/DME BC RWY 21, Amdt 6A. 4-Jan-18 NM Hobbs Lea County Rgnl 7/0651 11/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 2A. 4-Jan-18 NM Hobbs Lea County Rgnl 7/0654 11/6/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 7A. 4-Jan-18 NM Hobbs Lea County Rgnl 7/0655 11/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1A. 4-Jan-18 NM Hobbs Lea County Rgnl 7/0656 11/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1A. 4-Jan-18 NM Hobbs Lea County Rgnl 7/0872 11/6/17 VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 21, Amdt 9B. 4-Jan-18 MA Beverly Beverly Rgnl 7/1084 11/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1D. 4-Jan-18 IL Mattoon/Charleston Coles County Memorial 7/3399 11/6/17 VOR RWY 6, Amdt 13A. 4-Jan-18 IL Mattoon/Charleston Coles County Memorial 7/3400 11/6/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 29, Amdt 6C. 4-Jan-18 IL Mattoon/Charleston Coles County Memorial 7/3401 11/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1. 4-Jan-18 IL Mattoon/Charleston Coles County Memorial 7/3402 11/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig. 4-Jan-18 IL Mattoon/Charleston Coles County Memorial 7/3403 11/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig. 4-Jan-18 IL Mattoon/Charleston Coles County Memorial 7/3404 11/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1. 4-Jan-18 KS Pittsburg Atkinson Muni 7/4229 11/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1D. 4-Jan-18 IL Mattoon/Charleston Coles County Memorial 7/8801 11/6/17 VOR RWY 24, Amdt 11A.
[FR Doc. 2017-25838 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2017-0010] 16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1250 Safety Standard Mandating ASTM F963 for Toys AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

Section 106 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) made ASTM F963-07ε1, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety, a mandatory consumer product safety standard. That section also provides procedures for revisions to the standard. In accordance with these procedures, the Commission (CPSC or Commission) recently allowed the update to ASTM F963, ASTM F963-17, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety (ASTM F963-17), to become the mandatory toy standard, with one exception. This direct final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F963-17, with one exception, and updates the existing notice of requirements (NOR) that provides the criteria and process for Commission acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing for ASTM F963 pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

DATES:

The rule is effective on February 28, 2018, unless we receive significant adverse comment by January 3, 2018. If we receive timely significant adverse comment, we will publish notification in the Federal Register, withdrawing this direct final rule before its effective date. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register, as of February 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0010, by any of the following methods:

Submit electronic comments in the following way:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov.

Submit written submissions in the following way:

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information related to the toy standard, contact: Carolyn T. Manley, Lead Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone: 301-504-7607; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

Section 106 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Section 106(a) of the CPSIA mandated that beginning on February 10, 2009, ASTM F 963-07ε1, Standard Consumer Safety Specifications for Toy Safety,  1 shall be considered a mandatory consumer product safety standard issued by the CPSC. Public Law 110-314. Since ASTM F963 was first mandated in 2009, there have been three revisions, ASTM F963-08, ASTM F963-11, and ASTM F963-16. Currently, the provisions of ASTM F 963-16 are considered consumer product safety standards issued by the Commission under section 9 of the CPSA. Under section 106(g) of the CPSIA, if ASTM proposes revisions to ASTM F963, ASTM must notify the Commission. The revised standard shall be considered to be a consumer product safety standard issued by the CPSC under section 9 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2058), effective 180 days after the date on which ASTM notifies the Commission of the revision, unless, within 90 days after receiving that notice, the Commission notifies ASTM that it has determined that the proposed revision does not improve the safety of toys.

1 Except for section 4.2 and Annex 4 or any provision that restates or incorporates an existing mandatory standard or ban promulgated by the Commission or by statute.

Codification of Safety Standard Mandating ASTM F963 for Toys. As stated above, the CPSIA mandated provisions of ASTM F963 as a consumer product safety standard. Because this action took place by statute, the standard did not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. On February 2, 2017, the Commission published a direct final rule notifying the public that the Commission had allowed ASTM F963-16 to become the new CPSC standard and also incorporated that standard by reference at 16 CFR part 1250. 82 FR 8989. Thus, when revisions of F963 become the new CPSC standard, the Commission will amend 16 CFR part 1250 to revise the reference to the ASTM standard. As explained below, the Commission is amending 16 CFR part 1250 to incorporate by reference ASTM F963-17, except for one provision.2

2 16 CFR part 1250 continues to exclude from CPSC's mandatory standard certain provisions of ASTM F963 that the CPSIA excluded by statute.

Notification of Revisions. On September 1, 2017, ASTM notified the CPSC of ASTM's approval and publication of revisions to ASTM F963-17 in a revised standard approved on May 1, 2017, ASTM F963-17, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety. On November 27, 2017, the Commission voted 3 to allow the provisions of ASTM F963-17 to become the CPSC mandatory toy standard, with one exception. As discussed below, the Commission has reviewed the differences between ASTM F963-16 and ASTM F963-17 (the revised toy standard).

3 The Commission voted 3-1 to publish this direct final rule in the Federal Register. Commissioners Robert S. Adler, Marietta S. Robinson, and Elliot F. Kaye voted to publish this direct final rule. Acting Chairman Anne Marie Buerkle voted to allow ASTM F963-17, as published by ASTM, to become CPSC's mandatory standard and publish a direct final rule in the Federal Register reflecting approval of the standard as published by ASTM.

B. Revisions to the ASTM Standard

ASTM F963-17 contains various grammatical corrections, editorial corrections, and substantive changes to provisions concerning projectiles and sound-producing toys. The 2017 revision was published less than 1 year after ASTM F963-16 to correct some of the drafting errors found in ASTM F963-16. In particular, ASTM notified CPSC staff of negative consequences of a 2016 drafting error. In response, CPSC used enforcement discretion in March 2017, regarding testing and certification requirements in one section of ASTM F963-16 that concerned low-energy projectiles with stored energy.

The changes from ASTM F963-16 to ASTM F963-17 are summarized below:

Scope: Minor editorial changes only.

Referenced documents: Nine new references were added that were mostly related to microbiological guidelines.

Terminology: One definition was removed, one definition was clarified, and one definition was changed editorially.

Safety Requirements: One substantive clarification was made to section 4.21.2, Projectiles Toys with Stored Energy; one non-substantive clarification was made to section 4.21.3, Projectiles Toys without Stored Energy; and one clarification was made to section 4.21.3, Projectiles Toys without Stored Energy. One of the three clarifications (section 4.21.2) had been balloted and approved by the ASTM F15 Committee for Consumer Products for inclusion in the 2016 version, but the wording in section 4.21.2.3 was inadvertently omitted in the test method associated with kinetic energy (KE) of stored energy projectiles in the ASTM F963-16 revision.

Labeling Requirements: Minor editorial changes only.

Instructional Literature: Minor editorial changes only.

Test Methods: An additional sentence was added to the sound-producing toys test method in Section 8.20.1.5 (5). This sentence functionally exempts pull/push toys from the A-weighted maximum sound pressure level (LAFmax) requirement. As explained below, the Commission is not including this language in the mandatory standard.

Annex: The rationale was added addressing the new language in 4.21.2.3 for projectiles with stored energy.

The majority of the editorial revisions changed the word “must” to “shall,” which brings the revised standard in line with ASTM's current preferred language. In addition, new reference documents, references to tables/figures, and other editorial corrections were completed to fix known grammatical errors and incorrect references in the ASTM F963-16 version.

Two changes were substantive in nature. The first change, relating to requirements for projectile toys (Section 4.21), was a clarification that will neither increase, nor decrease, safety. The Commission had anticipated this change. However, the second change, relating to sound-producing toys, is substantive and reduces safety. This item was not balloted and was not reviewed by CPSC staff before ASTM published ASTM F963-17. ASTM added a sentence to the sound-producing toys test method in Section 8.20.1.5 (5) of ASTM F963-17 that functionally exempts push/pull toys from the A-weighted maximum sound pressure level (LAFmax) requirement. The LAFmax is a measurement of continuous sound. Without the LAFmax requirement, push/pull toys will only be subject to the LCpeak requirement, a requirement that is based on noise limits for impulse sounds (e.g., gun shots), not the continuous sounds, such as regular popping or clacking, which would be expected from push/pull toys. The Commission's interpretation that the LAFmax requirement applied to push/pull toys in ASTM F963-16 is based on the text of the standard.

The additional text added in ASTM F963-17 is a substantial change that reduces safety, because the additional text in Section 8.20.1.5 (5) provides an exemption for push/pull toys to the LAFmax requirement, which did not exist in ASTM F963-16. If such toys are exempt from the LAFmax requirement, they would be allowed on the market, even though their continuous sound level is greater than the standard permits for other floor toys. The Commission finds that the addition of text in Section 8.20.1.5(5) related to sound-producing toy requirements will decrease safety by allowing toys that produce sound levels that exceed noise exposure limits by the National Institute of Occupational and Health (NIOSH).4 Staff concludes that the LAFmax exemption has a negative impact on safety. Additionally, the exemption will reduce harmonization with EN-71. See Tab A of the staff briefing package https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed%20Revision%20of%20ASTM%20F963%20Mandatory%20Toy%20Standard%20-%20November%2015%202017.pdf?Rqy8BAU21cW2qoESRe_DSqkDknOpDtBq for a more detailed discussion regarding the exemption's effect on safety.

4 ASTM F963 sound limit calculations are based on occupation exposure limits recommended by NIOSH.

Because addition of the text in Section 8.20.1.5(5) of ASTM F 963-17 would not improve the safety of toys, the Commission determined that this provision should not be allowed to become part of CPSC's mandatory toy standard. The other changes are either editorial non-substantive changes that will not affect safety, or they are substantive changes that will improve safety. Thus, the Commission accepts all changes in ASTM F963-17, with the exception of the addition of text in Section 8.20.1.5 (5) because it reduces safety.

C. Incorporation by Reference

Although ASTM F963-17 is mandatory by operation of statute, the Commission has incorporated by reference ASTM F963 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to indicate that ASTM F963 is a CPSC mandatory standard.

The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble to the final rule, ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section B of this preamble summarizes the ASTM F963-17 standard that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1250. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties, and interested parties may purchase a copy of the standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA; phone: 610-832-9585; http://www.astm.org/. A copy of the standard can also be inspected at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.

D. Certification

Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program or, for children's products, on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment body accredited by the Commission to test according to the applicable requirements. As noted in the preceding discussion, standards issued under section 106(f)(1)(B) are “consumer product safety standards.” Thus, they are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA.

Because toys are children's products, samples of these products must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the Commission. These products also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements of section 101 of the CPSIA, the phthalates prohibitions of section 106 of the CPSIA, and the tracking label requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA.

E. Notice of Requirements

In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the CPSA, the Commission has previously published three NORs for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing toys (76 FR 46598 (Aug. 3, 2011), 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), and 82 FR 8989 (February 2, 2017)). The last NOR provided the criteria and process for our acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing toys to ASTM F963-16. The NOR for ASTM F963-16 is listed in the Commission's rule, “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.” 16 CFR part 1112.

The previous NOR for the toy safety standard included 37 sections from ASTM F963-16 that required third party testing.

Certain provisions of ASTM F963-17 do not require third party testing as was the case in the previous NORs issued for ASTM F963. The ASTM F963-17 provisions that do not require third party testing are in the following areas:

• Any provision of ASTM F963 that section 106 of the CPSIA excepted from being a mandatory consumer product safety standards issued by the Commission. The CPSIA also excepted from ASTM F963, any provision that restates or incorporates an existing mandatory standard or ban promulgated by the Commission or by statute. In addition, the CPSIA excepted provisions from ASTM F963 that restate or incorporate a regulation promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration or any statute administered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Section 4, Public Law 112-28, Aug 12, 2011.

• Those sections of ASTM F963-17 that pertain to the manufacturing process and, thus, cannot be evaluated meaningfully by a test of the finished product (e.g., the purified water provision at section 4.3.6.1).

• Those provisions of ASTM F963-17 with requirements for labeling, instructional literature, or producer's markings.

• Those provision in ASTM F963-17 that sets a limit for a DI (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in pacifiers, rattles, and teethers. This section is excepted from third party testing because section 108 of the CPSIA sets limits for this and other phthalates that are more stringent than this requirement in ASTM F963-17.

This latest revision of the toy safety standard, ASTM F963-17, had a much shorter period between revisions than is typical. In the earlier revisions, the transition period for CPSC acceptance of laboratory accreditation and the certification effective dates allowed adequate time for laboratories to update their accreditations to the latest standard. The revisions in earlier versions of the standard typically included several substantive changes in test requirements and testing methods. This is not the case when comparing ASTM F963-17 to ASTM F963-16. In response to the directions in the ASTM F963-16 NOR, testing laboratories began working with their accreditation bodies to update their scope of accreditation to include references to ASTM F963-16.

Since issuance of the ASTM F963-16 NOR, the CPSC has accepted applications from more than 100 testing laboratories for sections in ASTM F963-16 and posted the information for each laboratory on the CPSC Web site. However, there are still more than 100 CPSC-accepted laboratories that are listed only for ASTM F963-11 and have not yet updated their accreditation scope to include ASTM F963-16. Many of these laboratories may be in the process of updating their accreditation scope to ASTM F963-16. Other laboratories may be waiting on Commission action regarding adoption of ASTM F963-17 and the NOR for ASTM F963-17.

To address the transition just described, the Commission is permitting acceptance of testing that supports ASTM F963-17 certification, and acceptance of laboratory accreditation that take into account testing laboratories that are already CPSC-accepted for testing to relevant sections in ASTM F963-16, ASTM F963-11, and ASTM F963-07ε 1 Section 4.27, as described below.

1. CPSC Automatically Accepts Laboratories for ASTM F963-17, if the Laboratories Are CPSC-Accepted to ASTM F963-16

The CPSC's online laboratory application and Web site listing for testing laboratories that have been CPSC-accepted to sections in ASTM F963-16 will be modified to show CPSC-acceptance to “ASTM F963-16/ASTM F963-17.” For example, CPSC-accepted laboratories currently listed on the CPSC Web site for:

• 4.6 (ASTM F963-16), Small Objects • 4.7 (ASTM F963-16), Accessible Edges • 4.8 (ASTM F963-16), Projections will be changed on the CPSC Web site to read: • 4.6 (ASTM F963-16/ASTM F963-17), Small Objects • 4.7 (ASTM F963-16/ASTM F963-17), Accessible Edges • 4.8 (ASTM F963-16/ASTM F963-17), Projections This will accommodate laboratories that updated their accreditation scope and received CPSC acceptance shortly after issuance of the ASTM F963-16 NOR.

For laboratories that are accredited to ASTM F963-11 and that have not yet updated their scope to later versions, they may elect scope revisions to reflect ASTM F963-16 or ASTM F963-17, or both. When these laboratories apply to the CPSC, the CPSC will accept references to either the -16 or -17 version, and the lab will be listed on the CPSC Web site for “4.x (ASTM F963-16/ASTM F963-17).”

This will provide an equitable approach for all the third party laboratories that applied and were CPSC-accepted for sections in ASTM F963-16 and for testing laboratories that are currently working with their accreditation bodies to update the ASTM F963 references in their accreditation scope. In addition, this will allow laboratories that are CPSC-listed for “ASTM F963-16/ASTM F963-17” to conduct testing to support certification to the -16 and -17 versions ASTM F963.

2. Maintain the Interim Allowance for Laboratories Accredited to ASTM F963-11 To Test for ASTM F963-16 and ASTM F963-17

The NOR for ASTM F963-16 that was issued on February 2, 2017 (82 FR 8989), provided a transition period for CPSC-accepted labs to support certification testing to ASTM F963-16. During the transition period, CPSC will accept ASTM F963-16 testing results by test laboratories that are CPSC-accepted to ASTM F963-11 sections, or ASTM F963-07ε 1 section 4.27 for toy chests, for a period not to exceed 2 years. The 2-year period ends on February 4, 2019. This allowance was to provide adequate time for testing laboratories to work with their accreditation bodies, make official updates to their accreditation scope to include ASTM F963-16 sections, and submit applications to the CPSC. The ASTM F963-17 NOR will continue the transition period provided in the ASTM F963-16 NOR. The CPSC will accept ASTM F963-17 testing results by laboratories that are CPSC-accepted to ASTM sections in F963-11 (or 4.27 of ASTM F963-07ε 1) until February 4, 2019.

The CPSC will open the application process for all sections of ASTM F963-17 when this direct final rule is published in the Federal Register as an amendment to 16 CFR part 1112. The CPSC is providing notice of these requirements through this direct final rule and through direct email to all current CPSC-accepted laboratories and their accreditation bodies. This process will avoid disruption to continuous third party testing to the toy safety standard and allow for a practicable transition from ASTM F963-11 to ASTM F963-16 to ASTM F963-17 for testing laboratories, the toy industry, and other interested parties.

F. Direct Final Rule Process

The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Commission concludes that notice and comment is unnecessary because ASTM F963 automatically becomes a consumer product safety standard by operation of law. The Commission has voted to allow ASTM F963-17 to become the mandatory CPSC standard. Even without the incorporation by reference, ASTM F963-17, except for Section 8.20.1.5 (5) and provisions the CPSIA excluded, will take effect as the new mandatory CPSC standard pursuant to section 106(g) of the CPSIA. This rule amends 16 CFR part 1250 to reflect the standard that CPSC has allowed under section 106(g) of the CPSIA. Because this document merely incorporates by reference a standard that takes effect by operation of statute, public comment could not affect the changes to the standard or the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety standard under section 106(g) of the CPSIA. The rule also updates the corresponding provisions of the NOR for ASTM F963 in part 1112 to reflect the revision to the standard. The amendment to part 1112 does not establish substantive requirements, but updates the criteria and process for CPSC's acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing toys under the revised ASTM F963 standard. Therefore, the Commission concludes that public comment is not necessary.

The Commission believes that issuing a direct final rule in these circumstances is appropriate. In Recommendation 95-4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment. See 60 FR 43108 (August 18, 1995). ACUS also recommended using direct final rulemaking when an agency uses the “unnecessary” prong of the good cause exemption to notice and comment rulemaking. Consistent with the ACUS recommendation, the Commission is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because we do not believe comment is necessary and do not expect any significant adverse comments to the direct final rule.

Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on February 28, 2018. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule revising the incorporation by reference would be inappropriate. We note that comments on the underlying substantive provisions of ASTM F963-17 are not considered significant adverse comments because those provisions are mandatory by operation of the statute, and therefore, the Commission cannot change them in response to comments. The Commission could only make changes to the way the incorporation by reference appears in the CFR.

Should the Commission receive significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. As explained above, the Commission has determined that notice and comment is not necessary for this direct final rule. We also note the limited nature of this document. The incorporation by reference of ASTM F963-17 and the update to the notice of requirements in part 1112 will not result in any substantive changes to the standard. Thus, the rule does not create new substantive obligations for any entity, including any small entity. Rather, with this action, the CFR will reflect the mandatory CPSC standard that takes effect under the CPSIA and will update the corresponding NOR provisions in 16 CFR part 1112.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

The toy standard contains information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). OMB has approved the collection of information for ASTM F963 under OMB Control No. 3041-0159.

I. Environmental Considerations

The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

J. Preemption

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a “consumer product safety standard under [the CPSA)]” is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury, unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances.

Section 106(f) of the CPSIA states that rules issued under that section “shall be considered consumer product safety standards issued by the Commission under section of the Consumer Product Safety Act” thus, implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 106 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.

K. Effective Date

Under the procedure set forth in section 106(g) of the CPSIA, when ASTM revises ASTM F963, the revision becomes the CPSC standard within 180 days of notification to the Commission, unless the Commission determines that the revision does not improve the safety of the product. In accordance with this provision, this rule establishes an effective date that is 180 days after we received notification from ASTM of revisions to the standard. As discussed in section F of this preamble, this is a direct final rule. Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on February 28, 2018. Additionally, the effective date for the NOR is February 28, 2018, the same date that the provisions of ASTM F963-17 become effective.

List of Subjects 16 CFR Part 1112

Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity assessment body.

16 CFR Part 1250

Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Law enforcement, Safety, Toys.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 CFR chapter II, as follows:

PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).

2. Amend § 1112.15 by: a. Revising the introductory text to paragraph (b)(32); b. Revising paragraph (b)(32)(ii); and c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule or test method?

(b) * * *

(32) 16 CFR part 1250, safety standard for toys. The CPSC only requires certain provisions of ASTM F963-17 to be subject to third party testing; and therefore, the CPSC only accepts the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing under the following toy safety standards:

(ii) ASTM F963-17:

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) ASTM F963-17, “Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety,” May 1, 2017.

PART 1250—SAFETY STANDARD MANDATING ASTM F963 FOR TOYS 3. The authority citation for part 1250 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Pub. L. 110-314, sec. 106, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).

4. Amend § 1250.2 by: a. Revising paragraph (a); and b. Adding paragraph (c).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 1250.2 Requirements for toy safety.

(a) Except as provided for in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, toys must comply with the provisions of ASTM F963-17, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety, approved May 1, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference listed in this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of this ASTM standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA; phone: 610-832-9585; http://www.astm.org/. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or 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/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.

(c) Instead of complying with section 8.20.1.5(5) of ASTM F963-17, comply with the following:

(1) Floor and tabletop toys that move, where the sound is caused as a result of the movement imparted on the toy (for example, a noise making mechanism attached to an axle of a toy vehicle) shall be tested using the method for push and pull toys. In addition to the C-weighted peak measurement maximum A-weighted sound pressure level, L AFmax, shall be made and compared to the requirements of 4.5.1.2.

(2) [Reserved]

Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-26009 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0740; FRL-9970-93-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations. We are proposing to simultaneously approve a local rule and a rule rescission to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES:

This rule is effective on January 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0740. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

On January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2136) the EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove SMAQMD's SIP revision to address Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) based in part on our conclusion that the submittal did not satisfy the CAA section 182 requirements for RACT pertaining to pharmaceutical manufacturing operations. On August 12, 2016 we finalized our partial approval and partial disapproval and stated that sanctions would be imposed under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA approved SIP revisions correcting this deficiency within 18 months of the effective date of our final rulemaking action.

On April 28, 2106 the SMAQMD repealed Rule 455, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, and amended Rule 464, Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations, to address the VOC RACT deficiencies. On August 22, 2016 the California Air Resources Board submitted these rules to the EPA for SIP approval and the EPA proposed to approve them into the California SIP on July 19, 2017 (82 FR 33030). Table 1 below summarizes the submittal timeline.

Table 1—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Repealed Submitted SMAQMD 455 Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing 4/28/16 8/22/16 SMAQMD 464 Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations 4/28/16 8/22/16

We proposed to approve these revisions because we determined that they correct the identified RACT deficiencies for the pharmaceuticals manufacturing category and comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

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

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving Rule 464 and rescinding Rule 455. Please see the docket for a copy of the complete submitted documents. Final approval satisfies California's obligation, under CAA section 182 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, to implement RACT in the SMAQMD for the following control techniques guidelines VOC categories:

a. “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry,” EPA-450/4-91-031, August 1993.

b. “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products,” EPA-450/2-78-029, December 1978.

Our August 12, 2016 partial disapproval of SMAQMD's RACT SIP demonstration for the 1997 NAAQS also stated that a SIP submittal in the form of a rule or permit provision was required to implement VOC RACT for the Kiefer Landfill, a major VOC source. We are taking a separate action elsewhere in today's Federal Register to fully approve into the SIP operating permits for landfill gas flaring at the Kiefer Landfill. Our final approval of both the Kiefer Landfill operating permits and Rule 464 will terminate both the sanctions clocks and the federal implementation plan clock associated with our August 12, 2016 partial disapproval of SMAQMD's RACT SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 2, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: November 6, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(154)(iii)(D) and (c)(488)(i)(C) to read as follows:
§ 52.220 Identification of plan-in part.

(c) * * *

(154) * * *

(iii) * * *

(D) Rule 455, previously approved on January 24, 1985 in paragraph (c)(154)(iii)(B) of this section, is deleted with replacement in (c)(488)(i)(C)(1).

(488) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 464, “Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations,” amended on April 28, 2016.

[FR Doc. 2017-25929 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0066; EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0067; FRL-9960-05-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze SIP; FIP for Regional Haze; Final Action on Petitions for Reconsideration AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Notification of action denying petitions for reconsideration.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of its denials of petitions for reconsideration of rules addressing regional haze planning requirements for the States of Michigan and Minnesota. Specifically, on November 26, 2013, the United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) petitioned EPA to reconsider and stay the final rulemaking captioned “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; States of Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze” published on February 6, 2013, as well as the final rulemaking captioned “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; States of Michigan and Minnesota; Regional Haze,” published on September 30, 2013. Further, on June 13, 2016, U.S. Steel petitioned EPA to reconsider and stay the final rulemaking captioned “Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Revision to 2013 Taconite Federal Implementation Plan Establishing BART for Taconite Plants,” published on April 12, 2016. EPA has denied the petitions by final action signed January 18, 2017, for reasons that EPA explains in the document denying U.S. Steel's petitions.

DATES:

December 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established dockets for these actions under EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0066 for the Petition to Reconsider the Original 2013 Taconite FIP and EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0067 for the Petition to Reconsider the 2016 Revisions to the Taconite FIP. These dockets include the petitions for reconsideration, EPA's response, and other related documents. All documents are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6052 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, Air Planning and Maintenance Section, at 312-886-6052, [email protected] or at Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions for review of final actions by EPA. This action pertains to facilities in Minnesota and is not based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Thus, under section 307(b)(1), any petitions for review of EPA's action denying the U.S. Steel petition for reconsideration must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on or before February 2, 2018.

Dated: February 28, 2017. Robert Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. Editorial note:

This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on November 28, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-25946 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0013; FRL 9971-28-Region 2] Approval and Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New York; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a source-specific revision to the New York state implementation plan (SIP) that establishes Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emission limits for the Danskammer Generating Station (“Danskammer”) Unit 4, owned and operated by Danskammer Energy LLC. The SIP revision establishes BART emission limits for sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter that are identical to the emission limits established by the EPA's federal implementation plan (FIP) for Danskammer Unit 4, which was published on August 28, 2012. The EPA finds that the SIP revision fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule for BART at Danskammer Unit 4. In conjunction with this approval, we are withdrawing those portions of the FIP that address BART for Danskammer Unit 4.

DATES:

This rule is effective on January 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0013. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward J. Linky, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866 at 212-637-3764 or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Table of Contents I. What action is the EPA taking today? II. What significant comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed action? III. What are the EPA's conclusions? IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is the EPA taking today?

The EPA is approving a source-specific SIP revision for Danskammer Unit 4 (the “Danskammer SIP Revision”) that was submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on August 10, 2015, and supplemented on August 5, 2016. Specifically, the EPA is approving BART emission limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM) for Danskammer Unit 4 that are equivalent to the emission limits established by the EPA's FIP that was promulgated on August 28, 2012 (77 FR 51915, 51917).

In its submittal, NYSDEC included the following BART emission limits for Danskammer Unit 4: 0.12 pounds of NOX per million British thermal units (lb NOX/MMBtu) calculated on a 24-hour average during the ozone season and on a rolling 30-day average during the rest of the year; 0.09 lb SO2/MMBtu calculated on a 24-hour average; and 0.06 lb PM/MMBtu calculated on a 1-hour average. NYSDEC also included a condition that restricts Danskammer Unit 4 to combusting only natural gas. As a result of the EPA's approval, the EPA is withdrawing those portions of the FIP that address BART for Danskammer Unit 4. The reader is referred to EPA's Proposed Rule, 82 FR 21749 (May 10, 2017), for a detailed discussion of this SIP revision.

II. What significant comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed action?

EarthJustice (EJ) submitted the following comments on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and Sierra Club.

Comment 1: EJ supports the inclusion in the New York SIP of limits that restrict combustion at Danskammer Unit 4 to natural gas. EJ agrees with the EPA's conclusion that such a restriction will have the effect of reducing visibility-impairing emissions compared to the prior Title V permit and the EPA FIP that allowed combustion of coal, oil, or natural gas in Unit 4. According to the 2012 BART determination study for Danskammer Unit 4 that formed the basis for NYSDEC's and the EPA's BART determinations, 100% firing of natural gas is associated with the highest percent reduction of SO2 of the controls examined at the time, and the third highest percent reduction of NOX. Elimination of coal combustion is consistent with BART and will certainly provide visibility benefits at Class I areas.

Response: The EPA acknowledges EJ's support of the natural gas requirement in the Danskammer SIP Revision.

Comment 2: The 2012 BART determination for Danskammer Unit 4 formed the basis for NYSDEC's and EPA's prior BART determinations. Since the unit had already been converted to co-fire or exclusively fire natural gas in 1987, the determination included the option of 100% firing of natural gas as a feasible BART technology. Thus, the use of natural gas is not fuel switching for this unit. The prior BART analysis lists an achievable emission rate of 0.08 lbs/MMBtu for NOX, and a control efficiency of 99.95% under the 100% natural gas combustion scenario. Since natural gas combustion technology is already installed and operating, the cost of the technology to achieve these emission levels is $0.

Response: The commenter's intended point is that because restricting Danskammer Unit 4 to combusting natural gas is not a form of fuel switching, the state must adopt BART emission limits that reflect the low emission rates associated with natural gas combustion. The EPA disagrees that restricting Danskammer Unit 4 to combusting natural gas is not a form of fuel switching. The Danskammer Unit 4 boiler was designed to combust coal, fuel oil, and natural gas, and until recent years, coal was the unit's primary fuel source. By prohibiting Danskammer Unit 4 from combusting coal or fuel oil going forward, the Danskammer SIP Revision effects a fuel switch from multi-fuel capability to the exclusive use of natural gas. In the BART Guidelines, the EPA stated that “it is not our intent to direct States to switch fuel forms, e.g., from coal to gas.” 70 FR 39104, 39164 (July 6, 2005). As such, NYSDEC's decision to require fuel switching at Danskammer Unit 4 as a condition in its SIP revision was entirely discretionary. The EPA acknowledges that, by combusting only natural gas, Danskammer Unit 4 can achieve the lower emission limits cited by the commenter without additional cost, but the EPA cannot disapprove the SIP for not including lower limits when the BART Guidelines do not require states to consider fuel switching as a BART option in the first instance. See 70 FR at 39164.

Comment 3: As noted by the EPA, the emission limits for SO2 and NOX adopted by NYSDEC for Danskammer Unit 4 are identical to those contained in EPA's 2012 FIP. However, the rulemaking record for the 2012 FIP clearly demonstrates that these emission limits were designed for a plant that maintained the option to use coal as a fuel. The EPA's Regional Haze Rule requires that the “determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable.” 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). According to the EPA's own BART Guidelines, “[t]o complete the BART process, you must establish enforceable emission limits that reflect the BART requirements.” 70 FR 39172. The coal-based emission limits in the EPA's current proposal no longer reflect BART, as the plant is now restricted to burning natural gas. Thus they are not emission reductions “associated” with natural gas combustion under the BART Guidelines. The EPA must instead establish lower limits under BART reflecting the natural gas-only fuel restriction it proposes to incorporate into the SIP.

Response: The EPA disagrees that the natural gas requirement in the Danskammer SIP Revision is BART. As explained in the response to comment 2, the BART Guidelines do not require states to consider fuel switching as a BART control option. In its 2012 SIP submittal, NYSDEC included at its discretion a potential control option of 100% combustion of natural gas for Danskammer Unit 4 before rejecting it in favor of other control options. In the Danskammer SIP Revision, however, NYSDEC did not indicate that it was now determining 100% natural gas combustion to be BART. Rather, NYSDEC adopted the BART emission limits that the EPA established in its 2012 FIP, which were based on flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) for SO2, various options for reducing NOX, and Unit 4's existing electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for PM. The EPA included a detailed technical justification for its BART determinations in the record for that rulemaking, see 77 FR 24793, 24812-15 (April 25, 2012) (proposal); 77 FR 51918-23 (final), and the commenter has not made any effort to rebut that analysis with new information. Nothing in the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Regional Haze Rule, or the BART Guidelines requires the EPA to disapprove the Danskammer SIP Revision and establish lower emission limits reflecting 100% combustion of natural gas simply because NYSDEC included that condition in addition to its BART emission limits in its SIP revision. In any event, the EPA notes that requiring the lower emission limits favored by the commenter would not achieve an environmental benefit because the natural gas requirement in the Danskammer SIP Revision already has the practical effect of reducing Danskammer Unit 4's emissions to levels that are consistent with those lower emission limits.

Comment 4: The EPA claims in its proposal that NYSDEC's proposal is sufficient because it is “more stringent than the EPA's FIP.” 82 FR 21750. However, the BART determination cannot simply be more stringent than the EPA's FIP; it must stand alone as a BART determination, which includes requiring an emission limit consistent with the “best system of continuous emission control technology available,” in this case, at a minimum, the exclusive use of natural gas. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). In the original BART determination, as the EPA noted in its 2012 proposal, “[a]lthough gas co-firing (and 100% gas firing) appears to be feasible and cost effective, it was ruled out as a control option due to high price volatility of natural gas and potential reliability concerns on the state's electric system.” 77 FR 24812. These concerns are no longer valid, if indeed they were in the first place. Thus, based on the original BART determination for the unit, limits associated with the 100% firing of natural gas should be those originally associated with that control, i.e., no higher than 0.08 lbs/MMBtu for NOX and 99.95 percent SO2 control efficiency consistent with the unit's existing limits. The existing NOX limit is on a 24-hour average during the ozone season and a 30-day average during the remainder of the year. This is unjustified and inappropriate for a visibility-specific limit given 100% gas firing and higher impacts from nitrates during the wintertime. Also, the exclusive use of natural gas would reduce PM emissions as well, and so a PM emission limit should be set that reflects 100% natural gas firing, rather than the proposed limit of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu on a 1-hour basis, which was determined based on tests performed when burning coal.

Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment for the same reasons described in the EPA's previous responses. The EPA acknowledges that the Agency stated at proposal that the Danskammer SIP revision was approvable “because it is more stringent than the EPA's FIP.” 82 FR 21750. More accurately, the SIP revision is approvable because it meets minimum CAA requirements by adopting the emission limits in the EPA's FIP, and then goes beyond those minimum CAA requirements by including the “more stringent” natural gas requirement. See CAA section 116 (“[N]othing in [the CAA] shall preclude or deny the right of any State . . . to adopt or enforce . . . any requirement respecting control or abatement of air pollution . . . .”).

Comment 5: As noted, NYSDEC has claimed to submit these changes for Danskammer Unit 4 as an “updated” BART determination. The EPA has proposed to approve it as such, simultaneously withdrawing the BART determination in its FIP. However, NYSDEC has not submitted a BART determination, only changes to Unit 4's Title V permit. Neither the state nor the EPA has offered an actual BART determination, which must include consideration of: The costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). In this case, any updated BART determination should also include consideration of controls that can be used in addition to 100% firing of natural gas. Because the proposed rulemaking does not include a BART determination, the EPA cannot use it as a replacement for its challenged FIP. To fix this critical shortcoming, the EPA has several options. First, the EPA could include a BART determination with the final rule based on the information submitted with the 2012 New York haze SIP, setting limits based on 100% natural gas combustion and any further controls that it determines to be BART. Second, NYSDEC could immediately supplement its 2012 haze plan as to Danskammer Unit 4, and include a BART determination, again based on the prior BART analysis for 100% natural gas combustion and any additional BART controls. If NYSDEC pursues the second option and it cannot be achieved in a timely manner, EPA must issue a limited approval of the Title V permit restriction as to natural gas combustion and maintain the current FIP, disapproving the current submission as to any purported BART determination and requiring NYSDEC to formally resubmit an actual BART determination that includes at least 100% natural gas combustion at Unit 4.

Response: In the 2012 FIP, the EPA “encourage[d] New York at any time to submit a SIP revision to incorporate provisions that match the terms of our FIP, or relevant portion thereof,” explaining that if we approved the SIP revision, it would replace the FIP provisions. 77 FR 51917. NYSDEC responded by submitting the Danskammer SIP Revision, which incorporated provisions that match the terms of our FIP, as well as an additional requirement restricting Danskammer Unit 4 to combusting natural gas. Because NYSDEC was not required to update its BART determinations beyond incorporating the BART emission limits from the 2012 FIP, the EPA has no basis to disapprove the SIP revision and supplant it with another FIP.

Comment 6: The CAA requires that Danskammer procure, install, and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable. “As expeditiously as practicable” is defined as five years after the date of approval of a plan revision or promulgation of a FIP. The FIP here was promulgated on August 28, 2012. Therefore, the EPA must act promptly to respond to the issues identified in this letter and determine BART for gas-only combustion to enable Danskammer to meet this deadline.

Response: The 2012 FIP required Danskammer Unit 4 to comply with the BART emission limits by July 1, 2014. As a result of damage to the facility sustained during flooding in 2012, Danskammer Unit 4 was non-operational until the fall of 2014, when it began operating as a natural gas peaking unit. Danskammer Unit 4 has been complying with the BART emission limits in the FIP since it restarted in 2014. The Danskammer SIP Revision adopts the FIP's BART emission limits, and they will become federally enforceable on the effective date of this final action. Therefore, NYSDEC has satisfied CAA section 169A(g)(4)'s requirement that BART must be installed as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years after the date of approval of a plan revision (i.e., the Danskammer SIP Revision).

III. What are the EPA's conclusions?

The EPA has evaluated the Danskammer SIP Revision and is determining that it meets the requirements of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. Therefore, the EPA is approving the BART emission limits and related administrative requirements (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements) for Danskammer Unit 4, which are identical to those contained in the EPA's 2012 FIP: 0.12 lb NOX/MMBtu, calculated on a 24-hour average during the ozone season and on a rolling 30-day average during the rest of the year; 0.09 lb SO2/MMBtu, calculated on a 24-hour average; and 0.06 lb PM/MMBtu, calculated on a 1-hour average. NYSDEC also included in its SIP revision a condition that restricts Danskammer Unit 4 to combusting only natural gas, which the EPA is approving into the SIP. Consequently, the EPA is withdrawing those portions of the 2012 FIP that address BART for Danskammer Unit 4.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of a single-source SIP revision, dated August 10, 2015, and supplemented on August 5, 2016, from NYSDEC for Danskammer Unit 4 (Facility DEC ID 3334600011), including Title V permit conditions (permit ID 3-3346-00011/00017) with Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emission limits for NOX, SO2, and PM. NYSDEC renewed Danskammer's Title V permit on February 24, 2015. The summary of emission limits and other enforceable requirements for this SIP revision are included in section I of this rulemaking. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 2 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it will result in the approval of a SIP submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for Danskammer Generation Station Unit No. 4. Approval of SIPs falls within a category of Actions that is exempted from review by OMB. It was therefore not submitted to OMB for review.

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

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action falls within the category of Actions that OMB has exempted from review. This action specifically is an Approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).2 Because this final rule has identical recordkeeping and reporting requirements to the EPA's 2012 FIP, the PRA does not apply.

2 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities as no small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Because this final rule has identical BART emission limits and related administrative requirements (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements) to the EPA's 2012 FIP, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). As explained previously, this action provides identical BART emission limits and related administrative requirements (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements) to the EPA's 2012 FIP.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

M. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 2, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: November 20, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart HH—New York 2. Section 52.1670(d) is amended by adding an entry entitled “Danskammer Energy LLC, Danskammer Generating Station” to the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.1670 Identification of plan.

(d) * * *

EPA-Approved New York Source-Specific Provisions Name of source Identifier No. State effective date EPA approval date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * Danskammer Energy LLC, Danskammer Generating Station NYSDEC Facility No. 33346000011 2/25/15 11/4/17 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emission limits for NOX, SO2, and PM pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 249 for Unit 4 and the requirement to combust only natural gas.
3. Section 52.1686 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a); and b. Amending paragraph (c)(1) table by removing the entry “Danskammer Generating Station—Dynergy.”

The revision reads as follows:

§ 52.1686 Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator of the following electric generating units (EGUs) in the State of New York: Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2;

[FR Doc. 2017-25945 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0196; FRL-9970-92-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from landfill gas flaring at the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento, California. We are approving portions of two SMAQMD operating permits that limit VOC emissions from this facility under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES:

This rule will be effective on January 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-OAR-2017-0196. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the docket, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4122, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

On January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2136) the EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove SMAQMD's SIP revision to address Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) based in part on our conclusion that the submittal did not satisfy the CAA section 182 requirements for major source VOC RACT from landfill gas flaring operations at the Kiefer Landfill. On August 12, 2016 we finalized our partial approval and partial disapproval and stated that sanctions would be imposed under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA approved SIP revisions correcting this deficiency within 18 months of the effective date of our final rulemaking action.

On July 28, 2016 the SMAQMD adopted portions of two operating permits (Operating Permit 24360—issued March 24, 2016 and reissued April 14, 2016; and Operating Permit 24361—issued March 24, 2016 and reissued April 14, 2016) to address the VOC RACT deficiency. On January 24, 2017 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted these operating permits to the EPA for SIP approval and the EPA proposed to approve them into the California SIP on July 19, 2017 (82 FR 33032). Specifically, we proposed to approve permit conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 (or portions thereof) and Attachment A from SMAQMD Operating Permit Nos. 24360 and 24361. We proposed to approve these portions of the operating permits into the SIP because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on these operating permits and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

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

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted portions of the operating permits into the California SIP. Specifically, we are approving permit conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 (or portions thereof) and Attachment A from SMAQMD Operating Permit Nos. 24360 and 24361, which together establish enforceable VOC limitations that satisfy RACT for the landfill gas flares at the Kiefer Landfill. Please see the docket for a copy of the complete submitted documents.

Final approval satisfies California's obligation, under CAA section 182 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, to implement RACT for the landfill gas flares at the Kiefer Landfill. Our August 12, 2016 partial disapproval of SMAQMD's RACT SIP demonstration for the 1997 NAAQS also stated that amendments to SMAQMD's pharmaceuticals manufacturing rule were required to satisfy RACT. We are taking a separate action elsewhere in today's Federal Register to fully approve SMAQMD Rule 464, Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations, into the SIP. Our final approval of both the operating permits for the flares at the Kiefer Landfill and approval of Rule 464 will terminate both the sanctions clock and the federal implementation plan clock associated with our August 12, 2016 partial disapproval of SMAQMD's RACT SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 2, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: November 6, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(497) to read as follows:
§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part.

(c) * * *

(497) New and/or amended regulations for the following AQMDs were submitted on January 24, 2017 by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

(1) Permit to Operate for the Kiefer Landfill (“Permit to Operate No. 24360—Air Pollution Control Landfill Gas Flare No. 1, Enclosed Type”) with Attachment A, as reissued on April 14, 2016.

(2) Permit to Operate for the Kiefer Landfill (“Permit to Operate No. 24361—Air Pollution Control Landfill Gas Flare No. 2, Enclosed Type”) with Attachment A, as reissued on April 14, 2016.

[FR Doc. 2017-25928 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0856; FRL-9971-33-Region 10] Air Plan Approval; ID; 2012 PM2.5 Standard Infrastructure Requirements AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Whenever a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is promulgated, each state must submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of such standard—commonly referred to as infrastructure requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds that the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the infrastructure requirements for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0856. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 10, Office of Air and Waste, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Jentgen, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0340; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background Information II. Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background Information

On December 23, 2015, Idaho submitted a certification that the Idaho SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. On September 12, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the submission as meeting certain infrastructure requirements (82 FR 42772). Please see our proposed rulemaking for further explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period for this proposal ended on October 12, 2017. We received comments in support of this action and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

II. Final Action

The EPA finds that the Idaho SIP meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 2, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: November 15, 2017. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart N—Idaho 2. In § 52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by: a. Revising the entry entitled “Idaho State Board SIP Revision; Executive Order 2013-06; dated June 26, 2013”. b. Adding an entry at the end of the table for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS”.

The revision and addition read as follows:

§ 52.670 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter VIII—Nonattainment Area Plans *         *         *         *         *         *         * Idaho State Board SIP Revision; Executive Order 2013-06; dated June 26, 2013 State-wide 9/16/2013 10/24/2013, 78 FR 63394 To satisfy the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1) and CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for all criteria pollutants. Renewed on December 14, 2016, expiring December 14, 2020, unless renewed by subsequent Executive Order. See Executive Order 2016-07. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS State-wide 12/23/2015 12/4/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Approves SIP for purposes of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
[FR Doc. 2017-25930 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0130; FRL-9970-68-Region 9] Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Emission Reduction Credit Banking AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing action on a revision to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are finalizing a conditional approval of one rule. This revision consists of updates to provisions governing the issuance and banking of Emission Reduction Credits for use in the review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This rule will be effective on January 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0130. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-3534, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

On September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43202), the EPA proposed a conditional approval of the following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP.

Table 1—Submitted Rule Regulation and rule No. Rule title Adopted/
  • amended
  • Submitted
    Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Rule 2-4) Permits, Emissions Banking 12/19/12 4/22/13

    We proposed a conditional approval of Regulation 2, Rule 4 because we determined that, separate from the deficiencies listed in Section II.B of our proposed rulemaking action, the rule: ensures that issued ERCs will meet the criteria laid out in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) at the time of ERC issuance; satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i); satisfies the applicable requirements found in EPA's Emissions Trading Policy Statement; and satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii), which requires pre-base year shutdown credits to be explicitly added back in to the most recent applicable air quality plans. Moreover, we concluded that if the District submits the changes it committed to submit in its August 28, 2017 commitment letter, the identified deficiencies will be cured.

    II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

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

    III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(4) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is finalizing conditional approval of Regulation 2, Rule 4 into the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP. If the State meets its commitment to submit the required measures, the revisions to Rule 2-4 will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new SIP revisions. However, if the State fails to submit these revisions within the required timeframe, the conditional approval will automatically become a disapproval, and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval.

    There are no sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) implications should the conditional approval become a disapproval. Sanctions would not be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the submittal of Rule 2-4 is discretionary (i.e., not required to be included in the SIP). See ETPS, 51 FR 43,813 at 43,825 (“[S]tates are by no means required to adopt banking procedures, but . . . banks may help states and communities realize important planning and environmental benefits.”). A FIP would not be imposed under CAA section 110(c)(1) because the disapproval does not reveal a deficiency in the SIP that such a FIP must correct. Specifically: (1) The deficiencies identified herein do not impact or undermine the requirement that offsets satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165, including the requirement that offsets must satisfy the offset integrity criteria enumerated in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) at the time of use; and (2) Rule 2-4 is not a required CAA submittal because states and air districts have the discretion, but are not required, to adopt banking rules. This final action will incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient.

    In addition, because we are finalizing our proposed action, we are removing existing Regulation 2, Rule 4 from the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Permits, Emissions Banking), as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (Air-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 2, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, New Source Review, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 31, 2017. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(199)(i)(A)(10) and (c)(429)(i)(E)(3) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan—in part.

    (c) * * *

    (199) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (10) Previously approved on January 26, 1999 in paragraph (c)(199)(i)(A)(8) of this section and now deleted with replacement in (c)(429)(i)(E)(3), Regulation 2, Rule 4 adopted on June 15, 1994.

    (429) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (E) * * *

    (3) Regulation 2, “Permits,” Rule 4, “Emissions Banking,” adopted on December 19, 2012.

    3. Section 52.248 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 52.248 Identification of plan—conditional approval.

    (c) The EPA is conditionally approving a California State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on April 22, 2013, updating Regulation 2—Permits, Rule 4—Emissions Banking. The conditional approval is based on a commitment from the State to submit a SIP revision that will correct the identified deficiencies in this rule. If the State fails to meet its commitment by November 1, 2018, the conditional approval is treated as a disapproval.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25927 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0113; FRL-9970-43] Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 Protein in or on Soybean; Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 protein in or on soybean, when used as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) in soybean plants, in accordance with the terms of Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 264-EUP-151. Bayer CropScience LP., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting the temporary tolerance exemption. This regulation eliminates the need under FFDCA to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Cry14Ab-1 protein. The temporary tolerance exemption expires on April 1, 2020.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective December 4, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 2, 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-2017-0113, 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:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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 174 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(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0113 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 February 2, 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-2017-0113, 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. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26641) (FRL-9961-14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6F8541) by Bayer CropScience LP., 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petitioner requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the plant-pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 in or on soybean. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Bayer CropScience LP, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the Notice of Filing.

    EPA is establishing a temporary exemption that varies slightly from the request, as explained in Unit III.C.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(r) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues covered by an experimental use permit issued under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. That section states that the provisions of section 408(c)(2) of FFDCA apply to exemptions issued under FFDCA section 408(r). 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 exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption 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. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. In summary, the available data does not indicate any adverse effects due to toxicity or allergenicity of the Cry14Ab-1 protein. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessments based on that data can be found within the document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for the Plant-Incorporated Protectant Pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1.” This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

    There is likely to be exposure to Cry14Ab-1 through consumption of soybean plants containing the pesticide, and there is potential for exposure in drinking water. There is unlikely to be residential or non-occupational exposure due to incorporation within the plant and the lack of availability at this time of the plant for residential uses.

    Although FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides for an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects, EPA has determined that there are no such effects due to the lack of toxicity and allergenicity for this PIP. As a result, an additional margin of safety for the protection of infants and children is unnecessary.

    Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the Cry14Ab-1 protein in or on soybean. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion based on the lack of toxicity and allergenicity for the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 protein. Therefore, a temporary exemption is established for residues of this plant-incorporated protectant Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 protein in or on soybean.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes because EPA is establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation for which enforcement is unnecessary.

    C. Revisions to the Requested Tolerance Exemption

    EPA's final rule revises the request from “plant-pesticide” to “plant-incorporated protectant” to align with the Agency's language published in 40 CFR 174.3; adds the term “temporary” to reflect that this exemption is linked to the pending experimental use permit action, and is published in part 174 rather than part 180, since PIP tolerance exemptions are published in part 174.

    IV. 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 EPA. 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 tolerance exemption in this action, 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. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 EPA's 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).

    V. 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 174

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

    Dated: November 13, 2017. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 174—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. Add § 174.538 to subpart W to read as follows:
    § 174.538 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 protein in soybean; temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of the protein Cry14Ab-1 in or on soybean are temporarily exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in soybean plants in accordance with the terms of Experimental Use Permit No. 264-EUP-151. This temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance expires on April 1, 2020.

    [FR Doc. 2017-26080 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0115; FRL-9969-94] Pseudomonas fluorescens 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD-4); 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 the HPPD-4 protein derived from the 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase enzyme of Pseudomonas fluorescens in or on all food commodities, when used as a plant-incorporated protectant inert ingredient. Bayer CropScience LP submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need under FFDCA to establish a maximum permissible level for such residues.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective December 4, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 2, 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-2017-0115, 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:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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 174 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(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0115 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 February 2, 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-2017-0115, 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. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26639 (FRL-9961-90) and 82 FR 26641 (FRL-9961-14)), EPA issued notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (IN-11022) by Bayer CropScience LP 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for plant-pesticide inert HPPD-4 in or on all food commodities. A summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Bayer CropScience LP, is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to either notice.

    Two modifications have been made to the original request for a tolerance exemption. EPA changed “plant-pesticide inert” to “plant-incorporated protectant inert” to align with the Agency's vocabulary, which is published in 40 CFR part 174.3. Also, because EPA publishes all tolerances or exemptions for plant-incorporated protectants in part 174, EPA's rule is being issued in part 174, rather than part 180 as requested.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

    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 food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption 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. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on HPPD-4 and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on that data can be found within the October 2, 2017, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Assessment of the plant-incorporated protectant inert Pseudomonas fluorescens 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD-4).” This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

    The HPPD-4 protein is derived from the 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) enzyme of the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens. Four amino acid changes were made to the original bacterial protein sequence in order to decrease the binding efficacy of the HPPD-inhibitor herbicide. The resulting modified protein (the HPPD-4 protein) is the PIP inert ingredient. As a PIP inert, the HPPD-4 protein functions as a selectable marker in a PIP.

    Based upon available data, EPA concludes that the HPPD-4 protein derived from the Pseudomonas fluorescens HPPD enzyme does not show evidence of toxicity. Moreover, the source is not allergenic, nor is there any significant similarity between the HPPD-4 protein and known toxins and allergens. In addition, the HPPD-4 protein readily digests in gastric fluids and therefore cumulative, chronic, and acute effects are unlikely.

    Given the lack of toxicity or allergenicity of the HPPD-4 protein, the Agency has not identified any toxicological endpoints for assessing risk. Consequently, the Agency's assessment of exposure is qualitative. In addition, due to the lack of any threshold effects, EPA has determined that the provision to retain a 10X safety factor for the protection of infants and children does not apply. Similarly, the lack of any toxic mode of action or toxic metabolites means that the provision requiring an assessment of cumulative effects does not apply.

    Oral exposure may occur from ingestion of the raw crops containing HPPD-4, as well as their processed derivatives. Currently, HPPD-4 is only proposed to be used as a PIP inert ingredient in soybean, although it could be used in other crops in the future. The current proposed use results in the presence of HPPD-4 protein at low levels within the plant, although future uses could be higher. Based on the lack of adverse effects and the rapid digestibility of the protein, however, the Agency does not anticipate any risk from reasonably foreseeable levels of exposure. Residues in drinking water may theoretically be present because plant stubble may release modified HPPD-4 protein into ground water upon decay. However, the protein would not be expected to survive in the soil due to microbial degradation, adherence to soil components, and removal upon drinking water treatment procedures. In addition, oral toxicity testing showed no adverse effects. Moreover, because the PIP inert ingredient is currently only proposed to be used only in plants grown for commercial use, the Agency does not anticipate residential exposures. In the event that future uses are sold for residential use, the Agency does not expect there to be residential, non-occupational dermal or inhalation exposures, due to containment of the HPPD-4 protein within the plant.

    Based on the lack of any evidence of adverse effects in the toxicological database, dietary exposure to the HPPD-4 protein is not anticipated to pose any harm to the U.S. population. EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the HPPD-4 protein derived from the Pseudomonas fluorescens HPPD enzyme. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the plant-incorporated protectant inert ingredient Pseudomonas fluorescens HPPD-4 protein in or on all food commodities.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required because the lack of adverse effects makes enforcement and monitoring of residues unnecessary to ensure food safety.

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

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, 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. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 EPA's 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).

    V. 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 174

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

    Dated: November 13, 2017. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 174—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Add § 174.537 to subpart W to read as follows:
    § 174.537 HPPD-4 protein; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of the HPPD-4 protein, which is a modified protein derived from the 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase enzyme of Pseudomonas fluorescens, in or on all food commodities are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance, when the HPPD-4 protein is used as a plant-incorporated protectant inert ingredient.

    [FR Doc. 2017-26086 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0495; FRL-9970-01] Prometryn; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of prometryn in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective December 4, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 2, 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-2016-0495, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0495 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 February 2, 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-2016-0495, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of November 30, 2016 (81 FR 86312) (FRL-9954-06), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E8492) by IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of prometryn in or on the raw agricultural commodity lettuce at 0.5 parts per million (ppm); cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.25 ppm; fennel, Florence at 0.5 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 0.5 ppm; sesame, oil at 0.12 ppm; sesame, seed at 0.05 ppm; and Swiss chard at 0.5 ppm.

    In the Federal Register of April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17175) (FRL-9959-61), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E8492) by IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of prometryn in or on the raw agricultural commodity celtuce at 0.5 ppm. This notice of filing corrected the November 30, 2016 notice of filing which incorrectly listed the commodity as “lettuce” not “celtuce.”

    The documents referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to either notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has corrected the number of significant figures used, modified one of the commodity definitions, and determined that the sesame oil tolerance was not necessary. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    Following subchronic and chronic oral exposures to rabbits, mice, dogs and rats, the most consistent effects observed in the database were decreases in body weight and food consumption. Following chronic exposure, effects in the dog included degenerative hepatic changes, renal tubule degeneration, and bone marrow atrophy. In rats following chronic exposure, renal toxicity (mineralized concentrations) was observed. No adverse effects were seen in rabbits following dermal exposures up to the limit dose.

    There was evidence of increased pre- and post-natal quantitative susceptibility for prometryn. While there was no evidence of susceptibility in the developmental toxicity studies in rabbits and rats, there was evidence of quantitative susceptibility in the two-generation reproduction study in rats, with offspring effects (decreased pup body weight) occurring at lower doses than those that resulted in parental effects (decreased absolute bodyweight and food consumption).

    There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies. In an immunotoxicity study in rats, there was a decreased humoral immune response using the sheep red blood cell assay, but only at a dose above the limit dose (1045 mg/kg/day).

    Prometryn has been classified by EPA as “Group E:—Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans” based on the lack of oncogenic effects at any dose in both rats and mice. Prometryn was determined to be non-mutagenic and non-clastogenic in in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by prometryn as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Prometryn—Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review and the Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration Request for a New Use on Sesame and Crop-Group Conversions” on pages 46-49 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0495.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for prometryn used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Prometryn for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/safety factors RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects Acute dietary (Females 13-50 years of age) Endpoint not selected as there are no adverse developmental, offspring or reproductive effects seen in the toxicological database which are attributable to a single dose. Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) Endpoint not selected as there are no adverse single dose effects in the database which occur at levels relevant for human health risk assessment. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 4 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.04 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.04 mg/kg/day
  • Chronic Toxicity—Dog:
  • LOAEL = 37.5 mg/kg/day based on degenerative hepatic changes, renal tubule degeneration and bone marrow atrophy.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Group E: Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.”  FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to prometryn, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing prometryn tolerances in 40 CFR 180.222. EPA assessed dietary exposures from prometryn in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for prometryn; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that prometryn does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for prometryn. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for prometryn in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of prometryn. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of prometryn for chronic exposures are estimated to be 127 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 433 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 433 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

    Prometryn is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

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

    EPA has not found prometryn to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and prometryn does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that prometryn does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was evidence of increased pre- and post-natal quantitative susceptibility for prometryn. While there was no evidence of susceptibility in the developmental toxicity studies in rabbits and rats, there was evidence of quantitative susceptibility in the two-generation reproduction study in rats, with offspring effects (decreased pup body weight) occurring at lower doses than those that resulted in parental effects (decreased absolute bodyweight and food consumption).

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

    i. The toxicity database for prometryn is complete.

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

    iii. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in the developmental toxicity studies in rabbits or rats. However, there was evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility in the two-generation reproduction study. In the two-generation reproduction study, the offspring effects (decreased absolute pup bodyweight in the F1 generation) were observed at doses below parental toxicity (decreases in absolute bodyweight, bodyweight gain and food consumption in the F1 generation). Concern is low since the effects are characterized by clear NOAEL and LOAEL values and the selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to prometryn in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by prometryn.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, prometryn is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to prometryn from food and water will utilize 60% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1-year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for prometryn.

    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, prometryn is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short-and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short- or intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of either short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for prometryn.

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

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the established and proposed tolerances. Prometryn is completely recovered (>80% recovery) using the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Multiresidue Section 302. In addition, both Ciba-Geigy Method AG-559 (gas chromatography (GC)/flame-photometric detector (FPD)/S) and Method AG-673 (GC/nitrogen-phosphorous detector (NPD) method) are considered adequate for enforcement purposes.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established any MRLs for prometryn.

    C. Revisions To Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA modified the tolerance levels to reflect the correct number of significant figures and to be consistent with Agency policy. Also, the commodity definition for Florence fennel was modified to read “Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk” to be consistent with Agency nomenclature. Lastly, the petitioner recommended a tolerance for residues of prometryn in/on sesame, oil at 0.12 ppm. Residues in oil at a 5x application rate were 0.1076 which when extrapolated to 1x would be 0.02 ppm. As this value is well below the proposed raw agricultural commodity (RAC) tolerance, an oil tolerance is not necessary.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of prometryn, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on celtuce at 0.50 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.25 ppm; fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 0.50 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 0.50 ppm; sesame, seed at 0.05 ppm; and Swiss chard at 0.50 ppm. Additionally, the existing tolerances for the leaf petioles subgroup 4B and cotton, undelinted seed are removed as unnecessary, since they are superseded by the new tolerances.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 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 tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 15, 2017. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.222: i. Remove the entries from the table in paragraph (a) for “Cotton, undelinted seed” and “Leaf petioles subgroup 4B”. ii. Add alphabetically entries to the table in paragraph (a) for “Celtuce”; “Cottonseed subgroup 20C”; “Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk”; “Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B”; “Sesame, seed”; and “Swiss chard”.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 180.222 Prometryn; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Celtuce 0.50 *    *    *    *    * Cottonseed subgroup 20C 0.25 *    *    *    *    * Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk 0.50 Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B 0.50 *    *    *    *    * Sesame, seed 0.05 Swiss chard 0.50
    [FR Doc. 2017-26083 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0384; FRL-9970-05] Quinclorac; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of quinclorac in or on the bushberry subgroup 13-07B, the caneberry subgroup 13-07A, and asparagus. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective December 4, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 2, 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-2016-0384, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0384 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 February 2, 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-2016-0384, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of November 30, 2016 (81 FR 86312) (FRL-9954-06), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E8488) by IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide quinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid in or on asparagus at 0.06 parts per million (ppm); the bushberry subgroup 13-07B, except lowbush blueberry at 0.6 ppm; and the caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.06 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Albaugh, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which the tolerances are being established. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    Subchronic toxicity of quinclorac includes decreased body weight gains, increased water intake, increased liver enzymes (SGOT, SGPT) and focal chronic interstitial nephritis (rats). Chronic toxic effects of quinclorac include body weight decrement, increase in kidney and liver weights, and hydropic degeneration of the kidneys (dogs). At high doses, chronic toxicity also includes increased incidences of pancreatic acinar cell hyperplasia and adenomas (rats). Neurotoxic effects were not observed in any of the acute, subchronic, and chronic studies with quinclorac.

    There was no increased qualitative or quantitative fetal or offspring susceptibility in the prenatal developmental or postnatal reproduction studies. Developmental toxicity in the rabbit consisted of increased resorptions, post-implantation loss, decreased number of live fetuses, and reduced fetal body weight. These effects occurred at much higher doses than the maternal effects of decreased food consumption and increased water consumption and decreased body weight gain. In the rat, no developmental toxicity was observed at the highest dose tested (438 mg/kg/day). In the 2-generation reproduction study, parental toxicity and offspring toxicity occurred at the same dose. Parental toxicity consisted of reduced body weight in both sexes during premating and lactation periods. Offspring toxicity consisted of decreased pup weight, developmental delays and possible marginal effect on pup viability. No reproductive toxicity occurred at the highest dose tested (480 mg/kg/day).

    There are no mutagenicity concerns. Quinclorac is not mutagenic in bacterial assays and does not cause unscheduled DNA damage in primary rat hepatocytes. There is also no evidence of a genotoxic response in whole animal test systems (in vivo mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay). Quinclorac was negative in a mammalian cell in vitro cytogenetic chromosomal aberration assay in Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO). Quinclorac was classified by the Agency as a group D carcinogen—not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. Quantification of cancer risk is not required because the chronic RfD will adequately account for all chronic effects, including carcinogenicity, that may result from exposure to quinclorac.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by quinclorac as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Quinclorac: Human Health Risk Assessment for New Proposed Use on Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B, Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A, and Asparagus” on pages 41-46 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0384.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for quinclorac used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71523) (FRL-9902-15).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to quinclorac, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing quinclorac tolerances in 40 CFR 180.463. EPA assessed dietary exposures from quinclorac in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    For the general population including infants and children, no such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for quinclorac; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment for these population groups is unnecessary.

    However, for females 13 to 49 years of age, such effects were identified for quinclorac. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the 2003-2008 United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the current cancer classification of quinclorac, quantification of cancer risk is not required and the chronic RfD will adequately account for all chronic effects, including carcinogenicity, that may result from exposure to quinclorac.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for quinclorac. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for quinclorac in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of quinclorac. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and the Pesticide Water Calculator-Ground Water exposure model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of quinclorac for acute exposures are estimated to be 511 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 817 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 481 ppb for surface water and 543 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 817 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 543 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

    Quinclorac is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf grass and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-term residential handler inhalation exposure is expected from the existing uses. The quantitative exposure/risk assessment developed for residential handlers is based on the following scenarios: Loading/applying granules for belly grinder; loading/applying granules for push type rotary spreader; loading/applying granules for a spoon; loading/applying granules for a cup and shaker can; applying granules by hand; mixing/loading/applying liquid and dry flowable formulations via manually-pressurized handwand, a hose-end sprayer, a backpack, and a sprinkler can; and mixing/loading/applying ready-to-use formulation via a trigger sprayer, and a hose-end sprayer.

    Post-application short-term dermal and incidental oral exposure is expected from quinclorac treated turf in residential settings (i.e., lawns). Dermal exposures were not quantified due to a lack of a dermal toxicological endpoint. Incidental oral exposure risk estimates were calculated for hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion exposures for 1 to <2-year old children playing in the treated turf. Even though there is a granular product, an assessment for episodic granular ingestion was not done since there is no applicable endpoint (i.e., no acute dietary point of departure for children).

    The worst-case residential exposure scenario used in the adult aggregate assessment reflects inhalation exposure from residential handlers mixing/loading/applying water-dispersible granule/dry flowable formulations with a manually-pressurized handwand and/or backpack equipment.

    The worst-case residential exposure scenario used in the children 1<2 years old aggregate assessment reflects hand-to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to treated turf.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

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

    EPA has not found quinclorac to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and quinclorac does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that quinclorac does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicology database for quinclorac consists of developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a 2-generation reproduction study in rats. There is no indication of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of rats or rabbit fetuses to in utero and/or postnatal exposure in the developmental and reproductive toxicity data.

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

    i. The toxicity database for quinclorac is complete.

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

    iii. There is no evidence that quinclorac results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to quinclorac in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by quinclorac.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. For the general population including infants and children, no adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, quinclorac is not expected to pose an acute risk to these population groups. However, an adverse effect was identified for females 13 to 49 years of age, and therefore an acute aggregate risk assessment was performed for this population group.

    Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to quinclorac will occupy 2.4% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years old, the only population group of concern.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to quinclorac from food and water will utilize 9.4% of the cPAD for all infants <1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of quinclorac is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Quinclorac is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to quinclorac.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 2,100 for adults and 1,500 for children 1<2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for quinclorac is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, however, quinclorac is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure; therefore, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment was not performed nor required. In addition, since the short- and intermediate-term PODs are the same, the estimates for short-term duration are protective of intermediate-term duration.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the discussion in Unit III.A., EPA considers the chronic aggregate risk assessment to be protective of any aggregate cancer risk. As there is no chronic risk of concern, EPA does not expect any cancer risk to the U.S. population from aggregate exposure to quinclorac.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate analytical methods (gas chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD)) are available for enforcing quinclorac tolerances on plant and livestock commodities. The methods have undergone successful agency method validation trials and have been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) II as the tolerance enforcement methods. The Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) of both methods is 0.05 ppm for all matrices.

    Other adequate LC/MS/MS based analytical methods, BASF Method D9708/02 (for quinclorac) and BASF Method D9806/02 (for quinclorac methyl ester), are available for data collection and tolerance enforcement of residues of quinclorac and its methyl ester metabolite in/on plant commodities. The validated LOQ for both methods is 0.05 ppm. Both methods monitor two ion transitions. The Agency concurred with BASF's proposal to designate BASF Method D9708/02 and BASF Method D9806/02 as the new tolerance enforcement methods for quinclorac and quinclorac methy ester, respectively. These LC/MS/MS enforcement analytical methods without the methylation step are preferable to the previous GC/ECD method.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established any MRLs for quinclorac on any of the crops covered by this document.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Using the amended residue data in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures, the Agency is establishing the tolerance of 0.08 ppm for combined residues of quinclorac and its methyl ester metabolite, in/on the bushberry subgroup 13-07B, the caneberry subgroup 13-07A, and asparagus. The tolerance of 0.08 ppm in/on the caneberry subgroup 13-07A and asparagus is higher than the petitioned-for tolerance (0.06 ppm) because the quinclorac residue values from the submitted field trial data did not include the residue values of methyl ester metabolite. However, the tolerance in/on the bushberry subgroup 13-07B is much lower than the petitioned-for tolerance (0.6 ppm). In blueberry trials, the petitioner included the single lowbush blueberry trial (ME03) in the tolerance calculation for bushberry subgroup 13-07B. Trial ME03 gives a quinclorac residue value (HAFT: 0.374 ppm) that is approximately sixteen times greater than the residue value (HAFT: 0.024 ppm) in/on blueberries from the six highbush blueberry trials. The difference in residue value is largely attributed to application patterns. The single lowbush blueberry sample (ME03) was subjected to two applications—one broadcast to the ground, the other broadcast to the foliage, whereas samples of highbush blueberry (subgroup 13-07B) were conducted with banded soil application twice. After excluding ME03 the tolerance value of blueberry from the OECD calculator (0.08 ppm) is significantly lower than the proposed tolerance (0.6 ppm).

    Lastly, the Agency is modifying the proposed commodity definition of “Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B, except lowbush blueberry” to “Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B” because the lowbush blueberry tolerance is covered by the established tolerance at 1.5 ppm in/on berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of quinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid, in or on asparagus at 0.08 ppm; the bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 0.08 ppm; and the caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.08 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 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 tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 15, 2017. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.463, add alphabetically the commodities “Asparagus”; “Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B”; and “Caneberry subgroup 13-07A” to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 180.463 Quinclorac; tolerances for residues.

    (a)(1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million Asparagus 0.08 *    *    *    *    * Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B 0.08 Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 0.08 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2017-26078 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0563; FRL-9969-16] Extension of Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions (Multiple Chemicals) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation extends time-limited tolerances for the pesticides listed in this document. These actions are in response to EPA's granting of emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of these pesticides. In addition, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective December 4, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 2, 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-2017-0563, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0563 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 2, 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-2017-0563, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA previously published final rules in the Federal Register for each chemical and commodity listed, establishing time-limited tolerances under FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    EPA established the tolerances because FFDCA section 408(l)(6) requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be established on EPA's own initiative and without providing notice or time for public comment.

    EPA received requests to extend the emergency use of these chemicals for this year's growing season. After having reviewed these submissions, EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist. EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues for each chemical in the listed commodities. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.

    The data and other relevant material have been evaluated and discussed in the final rules originally published to support these uses. Based on that data and information considered, the Agency reaffirms that extension of these time-limited tolerances will continue to meet the requirements of FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Therefore, the time-limited tolerances are extended until the date listed. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerances from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Although these tolerances will expire and are revoked on the date listed, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on the commodity after that date will not be unlawful, provided the residue is present as a result of an application or use of a pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, the tolerance was in effect at the time of the application, and the residue does not exceed the level that was authorized by the tolerance. EPA will take action to revoke these tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.

    Tolerances for the use of the following pesticide chemicals on specific commodities are being extended:

    A. Clothianidin. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of clothianidin on citrus for control of the Asian citrus psyllid in Florida and Texas. This regulation extends a time-limited tolerance for residues of the insecticide clothianidin and its metabolites in or on Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.07 ppm for an additional 3-year period. This tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2020. A time-limited tolerance was originally published in the Federal Register of February 25, 2015 (80 FR 10003) (FRL-9919-59).

    B. Sulfoxaflor. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of sulfoxaflor on sorghum for control of the sugarcane aphid in several states. This regulation extends time-limited tolerances for residues of the insecticide sulfoxaflor and its metabolites in or on sorghum, forage at 0.4 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.3 ppm; and sorghum, stover at 0.9 ppm for an additional 3-year period. The tolerances will expire and are revoked on December 31, 2020. Time-limited tolerances were originally published in the Federal Register of January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4512) (FRL-9920-45).

    III. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has established MRLs for clothianidin in/on citrus fruits at 0.07 ppm. These MRLs are the same as the tolerance established for clothianidin in/on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 in the United States. The Codex has not established any MRLs for sulfoxaflor in/on sorghum commodities.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA has submitted 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: October 20, 2017. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.586, revise the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 180.586 Clothianidin; tolerances for residues.

    (b) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million Expiration/revocation date Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 0.07 12/31/20
    3. In § 180.668, revise the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 180. 668 Sulfoxaflor; tolerances for residues.

    (b) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million Expiration/revocation date Sorghum, forage 0.4 12/31/20 Sorghum, grain 0.3 12/31/20 Sorghum, stover 0.9 12/31/20
    [FR Doc. 2017-25826 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0314; FRL-9969-13] Ethofumesate; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of ethofumesate in or on beet, sugar, molasses and beet, sugar, roots. In addition, this regulation eliminates tolerances for residues of ethofumesate that are superseded by the tolerances established by this final rule. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective December 4, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 2, 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-2016-0314, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0314 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 February 2, 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-2016-0314, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47150) (FRL-9948-45), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E8472) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.345 be amended by increasing the existing tolerance for the combined residues of the herbicide ethofumesate (2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate) and its metabolites (2-hydroxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate and 2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-2-oxo-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate) both calculated as the parent compound, in or on beet, sugar, molasses from 0.5 to 2.5 parts per million (ppm); beet, sugar, refined sugar from 0.2 to 1.0 ppm; beet, sugar, roots from 0.3 to 1.5 ppm; and beet, sugar, tops from 4.0 to 30.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Willowood USA, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to the comment is found in Unit IV.C.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing tolerances that differ from what the petitioner requested. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity database and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    The liver is the main target organ in rats and dogs, and the major critical effects seen in oral studies are decreased body weight/body weight gain and hepatic toxicity in the rat, dog and/or rabbit. Mice are relatively insensitive to ethofumesate up to the limit dose following subchronic and chronic dietary exposure.

    Ethofumesate did not demonstrate the potential to cause neurotoxicity in four species (rats, mice, dogs and rabbits).

    Rats did not show evidence of developmental, maternal, or offspring toxicity or susceptibility in a three-generation reproduction study or any developmental or maternal toxicity in the developmental toxicity study. Although increased prenatal quantitative sensitivity (increased resorptions, increased post-implantation loss and incomplete ossification of the vertebral arches) was observed in the rabbit developmental toxicity study, the developmental toxicity no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) are well characterized. In maternal rabbits, effects included decreased body weight, increased mortality, abortions and complete litter resorption at levels in excess of the limit dose.

    Ethofumesate is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans”, based on bioassays in the rat and the mouse, combined with a lack of in vitro or in vivo mutagenicity supported by a battery of mutagenicity studies that showed no evidence of a mutagenic effect.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by ethofumesate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, “Ethofumesate. Human Health Risk Assessment for an Amended Use on Sugar Beets” dated October 4, 2017 at pages 33-36 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0314.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for ethofumesate used for human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

    Table Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for ethofumesate for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/
  • safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (Females 13-49 years of age) NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH =10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Total UF = 100
  • Acute RfD = 0.30 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.30 mg/kg/day
  • Developmental toxicity study in rabbit.
  • Developmental LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day based on increased resorptions, post-implantation loss and incomplete ossification of the vertebral arches.
  • Acute Dietary General population including infants and children No appropriate acute endpoint identified for the general population including infants and children. Chronic dietary (Females 13-49 years of age) NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Total UF = 100
  • Chronic RfD = 0.30 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.30 mg/kg/day
  • Developmental toxicity study in rabbit.
  • Developmental LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day based on increased resorptions, post-implantation loss and incomplete ossification of the vertebral arches.
  • Chronic Dietary, General population including infants and children NOAEL= 127 mg/kg/day
  • UFA=10
  • UFH=10
  • FQPA SF = 1X
  • Total UF = 100
  • cRfD = 1.3 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 1.3 mg/kg/day
  • Chronic oral toxicity/carcinogenicity study (rat).
  • LOAEL = 469 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain in females.
  • Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) & intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) Infants and children only NOAEL= 190 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Total UF = 100
  • Residential LOC for MOE = 100 90-day oral toxicity study (rats).
  • LOAEL = 1900 mg/kg/day based on based on reduced body weight gain, microscopic lesions in the liver and kidney in male rats and reduced body weight/weight gain in females.
  • Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) Females 13-49 years of age NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day
  • Dermal absorption rate (DAF) = 27%
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Total UF = 100
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental toxicity study (rabbits).
  • Developmental LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day based on increased resorptions, post-implantation loss and incomplete ossification of the vertebral arches.
  • Dermal short-term General population including infants and children NOAEL= 190 mg/kg/day
  • DAF rate = 27%
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 90-day oral toxicity study (rats).
  • LOAEL = 1900 mg/kg/day based on reduced body weight gain, microscopic lesions in the liver and kidney in male rats and reduced body weight/weight gain in females.
  • Inhalation (short and intermediate) Females 13-49 years of age NOAEL= 30 mg/kg/day
  • Inhalation & oral toxicity considered equivalent
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Total UF = 100
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental toxicity study (rabbits).
  • Developmental LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day based on increased resorptions, post-implantation loss and incomplete ossification of the vertebral arches.
  • Inhalation (short and intermediate term) General population including infants and children NOAEL = 190
  • Inhalation & oral toxicity considered equivalent
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Total UF = 100
  • LOC for MOE = 100 90-day oral toxicity study (rats).
  • LOAEL = 1900 mg/kg/day based on reduced body weight gain, microscopic lesions in the liver and kidney in male rats and reduced body weight/weight gain in females.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to ethofumesate, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing ethofumesate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.345. EPA assessed dietary exposures from ethofumesate in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Because no appropriate endpoint was identified for the general population including infants and children, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted for these populations. Such effects were observed for the population subgroup females 13-49 years of age.

    In estimating acute dietary exposure for females 13-49 years, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003 through 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA used an unrefined determination based on tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT) information for all commodities, and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.81 default processing factors, where available.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's 2003-2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used an unrefined determination based on 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues for all commodities, and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.81 default processing factors, where available.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that ethofumesate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. The Agency did not use anticipated residue data or percent crop treated estimates.

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

    Based on the Tier I: First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Tier II: Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW)/PWC, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of ethofumesate (parent compound only) for acute exposures are estimated to be 416 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 750 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 123 ppb for surface water and 695 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations of ethofumesate for parent compound only, were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 750 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 695 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

    Ethofumesate is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: ornamental lawns and turf (including golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and homeowner/commercial lawns). EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: All ethofumesate products are intended for either agricultural use or require professional application for ornamental turf. Although registered products are labeled for use on home lawns, residential handler exposures are not anticipated because the label language requiring personal protective equipment (PPE) and prohibiting the use of handheld equipment indicate that the product is not intended for homeowner use. Therefore, the Agency has not conducted a residential handler assessment.

    There is potential for ethofumesate residential post-application exposure for individuals exposed as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated. Residential post-application dermal (adults and children) and incidental oral (children only) exposures are anticipated from the registered turf uses. EPA conducted screening level calculations on the scenarios most likely to result in highest possible exposure. These scenarios are:

    • For children 1 to <2 years old: incidental ingestion (hand-to-mouth), incidental ingestion (turf-to-mouth), incidental ingestion (soil-to-mouth), and dermal exposure

    • for adults and youths (11 to <16 years old: dermal exposure (golfing, lawn mowing, etc.).

    Post-application exposures were calculated by considering the potential sources of exposure then calculating dermal and/or incidental oral exposure and risks. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

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

    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to ethofumesate and any other substances and ethofumesate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that ethofumesate 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/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There are no concerns or uncertainties for pre- and/or post-natal toxicity resulting from exposure to ethofumesate. There is no evidence that ethofumesate results in increased susceptibility in in utero exposure to ethofumesate in the prenatal developmental study in rats. Increased pre-natal quantitative susceptibility was observed in the rabbit developmental toxicity study. The Agency concluded, however, that there is no concern that the risk assessment will not adequately safeguard against potential pre- and post-natal toxicity because the developmental toxicity NOAELs/LOAELs are well characterized and are used as endpoints for risk assessment for the appropriate population subgroups.

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

    i. The toxicity database for ethofumesate is sufficiently complete and adequate for characterizing potential pre- and/or post-natal risks to infants and children. Available studies supporting this decision include developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, and a three-generation reproduction study in rats.

    Based on all available hazard and exposure data for ethofumesate, the Agency determined that the subchronic inhalation, acute and subchronic neurotoxicity, and the immunotoxicity studies for ethofumesate were not necessary and waived those requirements. The existing ethofumesate database is extensive and adequately sufficient to permit a full assessment of risks associated with proposed new uses under consideration.

    ii. There is no indication that ethofumesate is a neurotoxic chemical. Ethofumesate did not cause clear clinical or histopathological signs of neurotoxicity in four species tested (rats, rabbits, mice and dogs) as evaluated by the current studies within the database. In addition, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity observed in the toxicity databases of chemicals in the same class as ethofumesate. Therefore, EPA is not requiring a developmental neurotoxicity study nor incorporating an additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that ethofumesate results in increased susceptibility in in utero exposure to ethofumesate in the prenatal developmental study in rats. No rat developmental effects were seen at the highest dose tested (limit dose of 1000 mg/kg). There is, however, quantitative evidence for increased susceptibility following in utero exposure to ethofumesate in an adequate developmental toxicity study in the rabbit. At 300 mg/kg/day, no maternal toxicity was reported, but developmental toxicity was observed as increased resorptions, post-implantation loss and skeletal abnormalities (incomplete ossification of vertebral arches). However, the developmental toxicity NOAELs and LOAELs are well characterized and are used as endpoints for risk assessment for the appropriate population subgroups.

    There was no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in the three-generation reproduction study in rats with ethofumesate since maternal, reproductive and offspring toxicity were not observed at any dose tested up to 5000 ppm (397 and 463 mg/kg/day, males and females, respectively). Although a limit dose was not achieved and no maternal toxicity reported, a new study was not required because the highest dose tested was similar to the dose level that caused toxicity to rats in the chronic/carcinogenicity dietary study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary exposure analyses are unlikely to underestimate exposure. The acute and chronic dietary food and drinking water exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT information for all commodities, tolerance-level residues, and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.81 default processing factors where available. The dietary exposure analyses also assumed that all drinking water will contain ethofumesate at the highest EDWC levels modeled by EPA. The Agency used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of adults and children. The residential exposure estimates are based on EPA's 2012 Residential Standard Operations Procedures (SOPs). These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by ethofumesate.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to ethofumesate will occupy 14% of the aPAD at the 95th percentile for females 13-49 years old, the only population subgroup for which an acute dietary endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure from food and drinking water only as chronic exposure from residential uses of ethofumesate is not expected, EPA identified separate chronic dietary endpoints for the general population, including infants and children, as well as for the population subgroup of females 13-49 years of age. Based on the input parameters and assumptions, the chronic dietary risk estimate for the U.S. population was determined to be 1.2% of the cPAD with the population subgroup of females 13-49 years having the highest risk estimate at 5.2% of the cPAD. EPA concluded that ethofumesate risk estimates for all population subgroups were below the level of concern of <100% of the cPAD.

    3. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Ethofumesate is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure. Residential exposure to ethofumesate is not anticipated from the amended uses that are the subject of this regulatory action; however, it is anticipated from currently registered residential uses of ethofumesate. Residential exposures are only expected to be short-term in duration; however, since the point of departure is the same for short and intermediate-term exposures, the short-term aggregate is protective of any longer-term exposures.

    Aggregate risk estimates (MOEs) were derived using recommended exposure scenarios including: For adults, dermal post-application exposure from high contact activities on treated turf; for children, including ages 11 to <16 years and 6 to <11 years, dermal post-application exposure from golfing on treated turf; and for children (1 to <2 years), combined dermal plus hand-to-mouth post-application exposure from high contact activities on treated turf.

    EPA short-term aggregate risk calculations of aggregate MOEs, combining average food and drinking water, plus residential exposures (total exposure), ranged from 120 for females 13-49 years; to 430 for children 1 to <2 years; to 770 for adults, 20-49 years and significantly higher for population subgroups, children 6 to 11 years and youth 11 to <16 years. These short-term aggregate risk estimates are not of concern to EPA (i.e., MOEs are ≥ 100).

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

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Method I in PAM Vol. II is listed as an adequate tolerance enforcement method for plants) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    There are no Codex MRLs established for the residues of ethofumesate in/on any sugar beet raw agricultural or processed commodity.

    C. Response to Comments

    One commenter supported the tolerance action but expressed concerns about the need for additional data to assess the toxicity of ethofumesate to bioaccumulate and to contribute to obesity and diabetes. To the extent the commenter is concerned about impacts on aquatic life, earthworms, and other non-human organisms, this comment is outside the scope of review appropriate for a tolerance safety assessment under section 408 of the FFDCA. If the commenter is raising concerns about potential human harm, the Agency has considered all the available data and determined that the tolerances are safe; there is nothing in the toxicity database that would suggest toxicity concerns related to diabetes or obesity.

    The octanol-water partition coefficient (log Kow) for ethofumesate is 2.8. Compounds with log Kow values less than three are unlikely to bioaccumulate substantially. Therefore, further assessment of the bioaccumulation of ethofumesate is not warranted at this time.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is not increasing the existing tolerance for “Beet, sugar, tops” because it is unnecessary due to the fact that this commodity is no longer a significant livestock feed item or a recognized human food.

    Although the petitioner requested an increase in the existing sugar, beet, refined sugar tolerance, EPA has determined that the tolerance is not needed because the limit established for the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) (beet, sugar, roots at 1.5 ppm) is sufficient to cover residues in this processed commodity (at 1.0 ppm).

    In setting the sugar beet molasses tolerance, EPA used the empirical processing factor previously derived for determining the concentration of residues in this processed commodity, which results in a tolerance of 2.0 ppm rather 2.5 ppm as requested.

    The tolerance expressions at 180.345 paragraphs (a) and (c) for ethofumesate are being revised to comply with current EPA policies and to accommodate updated tolerance enforcement methods that convert the NC 20645 (2-(2-hydroxy-5-methanesulfonyloxyphenyl) methylpropanoic acid) metabolite to NC9607 (3,3-dimethyl-5-[(methylsulfonyl)oxy]-2(3H)-benzofuranone) prior to quantitation.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide ethofumesate in or on beet, sugar, molasses at 2.0 ppm and beet, sugar, roots at 1.5 ppm. Also, the tolerance for beet, sugar, refined is deleted because residues in that processed commodity are covered by the tolerance for beet, sugar, roots.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 26, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.345: i. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a); ii. Remove the entry for “Beet, sugar, refined sugar” from the table in paragraph (a); iii. Revise the entries for “Beet, sugar, molasses” and “Beet, sugar, roots” in the table in paragraph (a): and iv. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 180.345 Ethofumesate; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerance are established for residues of the herbicide ethofumesate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of ethofumesate, 2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate, and its metabolites 2-hydroxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate, and 2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-2-oxo-5-benzofuranylmethanesulfonate, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of ethofumesate, in or on the following food commodities.

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Beet, sugar, molasses 2.0 Beet, sugar, roots 1.5 *    *    *    *    *

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with a regional registration, as defined in § 180.1(l) are established for residues of the herbicide ethofumesate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only the sum of ethofumesate, 2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate, and its metabolites 2-hydroxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate, and 2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-2-oxo-5-benzofuranylmethanesulfonate, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of ethofumesate, in or on the raw agricultural commodities.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25828 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 10 and 11 [PS Docket No. 15-91; PS Docket No. 15-94; FCC 17-143] Wireless Emergency Alerts; Emergency Alert System AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) grants the petition filed by CTIA for reconsideration the Commission's recent decision to revise its Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) rules and grants in part and denies in part the Competitive Carrier Association's (CCA) request for a waiver or extension of time. Specifically, the Commission extends the timeframe for compliance with the requirement in the WEA Report and Order that Participating CMS Providers provide “clickable” embedded references in WEA messages from 12 months to 30 months except for AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and U.S. Cellular. This document also clarifies that the requirement for “clickable” embedded references encompass phone numbers and other types of embedded references, and that our embedded reference requirement applies to new devices as well as existing devices capable of supporting this feature through a software upgrade. Finally, this document denies CCA's request for a waiver or an extension of time for compliance with the geo-targeting requirements.

    DATES:

    Effective December 4, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Cooke of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Policy and Licensing Division, [email protected], (202) 418-2351.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration in PS Docket No. 15-91, No. 15-94, FCC 17-143, released on November 1, 2017. The document is available for download at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-143A1.pdf. The complete text of this document is also available for 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. 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).

    Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. This Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) supplements the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the September 2016 WEA Report and Order, 81 FR 75710 (WEA R&O) to reflect the actions taken in this Order on Reconsideration and conforms to the RFA.

    Need for, and Objective of, the Order

    2. In the WEA R&O, we took advantage of the significant technological changes and improvements experienced by the mobile wireless industry since the passage of the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, and deployment of WEA to improve the utility of WEA as a life-saving tool. As pertinent to the Order on Reconsideration we adopt today, in the WEA R&O we adopted rules focused on improving WEA message content by narrowing the rules for the geo-targeting of alerts, requiring Participating Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) Providers to support embedded references (i.e., URLs and phone numbers) included in WEA Alert Messages. In doing so, we set a deadline for compliance with the embedded reference requirement of one year (12 months).

    3. In this Order on Reconsideration, we grant, to the extent described herein, CTIA's Petition for Reconsideration of the WEA R&O and CCA's Petition for Waiver, or in the Alternative, Extension of Time. In doing so, we deny CCA's request for a waiver or an extension of time for compliance with the WEA R&O's best approximates geo-targeting standard, as compliance with the best approximate geo-targeting is well within the capabilities of CCA's members; and we reconsider the deadline for compliance with the embedded reference requirement from one year (12 months) to 30 months for all Participating CMS Providers except for AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and U.S. Cellular, because these CMS Providers have indicated their ability and intent to meet the November 1, 2017 deadline for embedded references adopted in the WEA R&O. The actions we take today allow us to continue to advance down the path outlined in the WEA R&O while supplying additional time for compliance to smaller entities (i.e., small and regional carriers) with respect to the embedded reference requirement adopted therein.

    Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    4. In light of reconsideration, waiver, and extension requests, the Commission considered the potential impact of the rules proposed in the IRFA on small entities and reduced the compliance burden in order to reduce the economic impact of the rules enacted herein on such entities.

    Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration

    5. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule(s) as a result of those comments.

    6. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rule(s) in this proceeding.

    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rules Would Apply

    7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    8. As noted above, a FRFA was incorporated into the WEA R&O. In that analysis, we described in detail the small entities that might be significantly affected by the rules adopted in the WEA R&O. Those entities may be found in a number of services including, e.g.: Wireless telecommunications carriers, broadband Personal Communications Service, narrowband Personal Communications Service, Wireless Communications Services, Advanced Wireless Services, lower and upper 700 MHz Band licenses, software publishers, and radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing. In this Order on Reconsideration, we hereby use the descriptions and estimates of the number of small entities from the previous FRFA in this proceeding.

    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    9. The data, information and document collection required by the WEA R&O as described in the previous FRFA in this proceeding is hereby used. The actions taken in this Order do not amend or otherwise revise those requirements, except to supply additional time for compliance with one of the requirements, i.e., embedded references in WEA messages.

    Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    10. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    11. The analysis of the Commission's efforts to minimize the possible significant economic impact on small entities as described in the previous FRFA in this proceeding is hereby incorporated by reference. Additionally, in this Order, in response to concerns raised by small entities, i.e., small and regional carriers, the Commission is supplying additional time, until May 1, 2019, for all carriers (apart from the five) to comply with the embedded reference requirement.

    Report to Congress

    12. The Commission will send a copy of this Order, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Order, including the Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of this Order and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

    Synopsis

    13. In this Order on Reconsideration, we reaffirm our existing schedule for geo-targeting alerts to best approximate the target area and reaffirm that the five largest mobile service providers must provide clickable embedded references by November 1, 2017, but we extend the timeline for smaller, regional wireless providers to come into compliance with that requirement. These actions ensure that smaller, regional wireless providers remain part of the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) system while maximizing the deployment of more effective wireless emergency alerts to consumers.

    14. In September 2016, the Commission adopted the WEA Report and Order, 81 FR 75710 (WEA R&O), which eliminated the prohibition on the use of embedded references in non-Presidential Alerts and required Participating CMS Providers to support embedded references within one year of the rules' publication in the Federal Register. Among other issues, CTIA timely petitioned the Commission to reconsider, or, in the alternative, clarify this requirement.

    15. CTIA requests that the Commission defer mandating implementation of embedded references until after feasibility testing is completed (i.e., testing whether embedded references in WEA alerts would cause harmful network congestion) and the requirements for compliance are clarified (e.g., that the Commission is requiring embedded reference capability only for new devices).

    16. CTIA makes three arguments: mandating compliance before comprehensive feasibility testing may lead to substantial network congestion; testing, prior to mandating compliance, is necessary to determine the feasibility of supporting embedded references; and the compliance deadline has no sound basis in the record.

    17. On August 16, 2017, the CCA filed a Petition for Waiver, or in the Alternative, Extension of Time, requesting a waiver or extension of the compliance timeline for support for embedded references until May 1, 2019, consistent with CTIA's request. CCA further requested a waiver or extension of time for compliance with the WEA R&O's geo-targeting requirement until May 1, 2019.

    Discussion Timeframe for Supporting Basic Geo-Targeting

    18. CCA requests that we waive or delay the November 1, 2017 deadline for basic geo-targeting (known as best approximates geo-targeting). We decline the request and reaffirm the current schedule for the deployment of basic geo-targeting for wireless emergency alerts.

    19. The basic geo-targeting standard is designed to be flexible and to take into consideration the specific capabilities of each Participating CMS Provider. In the WEA R&O, the Commission set forth the expectation that Participating CMS Providers will take reasonable efforts to leverage existing technology to its fullest extent and articulated potential techniques and benchmarks for basic geo-targeting. As the Commission noted when it adopted the initial rules for WEA, the system is technologically neutral, and Participating CMS providers are in the best position to select and incorporate the technologies that will enable them to most effectively and efficiently deliver mobile alerts.

    20. Although CCA asserts that many of its members cannot comply with the standard because they are still transitioning from 2G and 3G to 4G technologies and because the standards applicable to best approximates” are still in development, we reject CCA's contention that its ability to meet the basic geo-targeting standard is affected in any way by a particular technology such as cell broadcasting. Rather, we anticipate that CCA's members, like other Participating CMS Providers, will continue to employ the techniques that they have been deploying as a matter of best practice. Accordingly, given the inherent flexibility in the best approximates geo-targeting standard, we find no basis for granting relief from this requirement.

    Timeframe for Supporting Embedded References

    21. CTIA and CCA request we revise the compliance timeframe for the embedded reference requirement. We decline to do so for the five largest Participating CMS Providers—Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and U.S. Cellular—who have indicated that they are able to and intend to support embedded references on smartphones capable of processing them by the November 1, 2017 deadline. We observe that the WEA R&O explicitly made clear that the embedded reference requirement can be enabled through software updates, and that Participating CMS Providers could implement the necessary changes to their software to make the embedded reference capability available to customers. Mobile devices that support neither embedded references nor the software updates that would provide such capability will not be considered WEA capable.

    22. We nonetheless grant 18 months of relief to smaller, regional operators—specifically, all Participating CMS Providers other than the largest five—so that they will have additional time to deploy network upgrades and learn from the deployment experiences of the largest Participating CMS Providers on how best to ensure embedded references are smoothly integrated into the WEA system.

    23. CCA argues that its members, which are smaller and regional providers, have fewer resources, and that 18 additional months is sufficient time to implement the embedded references requirement. We agree. As CCA notes, smaller and regional wireless providers within its membership do not participate in the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions' (ATIS) standards-setting process and may need additional time to review and implement these standards. Further, as CCA notes, the capabilities necessary for some providers to implement enhanced WEA requirements are still in flux. For example, carriers that are currently participating in the WEA program through an application-based solution need additional time to coordinate, test, and implement updates to current standards. This transition may necessitate additional time for compliance, coordination, and testing. As the Commission has otherwise found, 30 months from the rules' publication in the Federal Register, i.e., May 1, 2019, is sufficient time to comply with WEA requirements that necessitate the development of standards and software, testing, and deployment, and we find this time frame to be sufficient and necessary for Participating CMS Providers (apart from the five largest) to comply with the embedded references deadline, particularly given the difficulties that CCA has described in its Petition. We anticipate that this relief will dissuade CCA members from withdrawing from WEA participation because they cannot comply with the embedded references requirement by the November 1, 2017 deadline.

    24. Finally, we are aware that there will be a short period of time between the original November 1, 2017 deadline for embedded references and the publication of this Order on Reconsideration in the Federal Register, notwithstanding that the record reflects good cause for such relief being immediately effective. Accordingly, to the extent necessary to support the decision in this Order on Reconsideration, we waive the November 1, 2017 deadline for all Participating CMS Providers, except for AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and U.S. Cellular, until the publication of this Order in the Federal Register.

    Procedural Matters Accessible Formats

    25. 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).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    26. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Congressional Review Act

    27. The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, we have prepared a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) addressing the actions taken in this Order.

    Additional Information

    29. 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).

    30. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Gregory Cooke of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Policy and Licensing Division, [email protected], (202) 418-2351.

    Ordering Clauses

    31. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g), and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), and 606, as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act, 47 U.S.C. 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206, that the CTIA Petition is granted to the extent specified herein and denied to the extent specified herein.

    32. It is also ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g), and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), and 606, as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act, 47 U.S.C. 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206, that the CCA Petition is granted to the extent specified herein and denied to the extent specified herein.

    33. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g), and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), and 606, as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act, 47 U.S.C. 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206, that the Order on Reconsideration in PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94 is hereby adopted.

    34. It is further ordered that, as set forth in this Order, that except for AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and U.S. Cellular, for which the operative date for this requirement remains November 1, 2017, the operative date of the requirement imposed by 47 CFR 10.441, published at 81 FR 75710, is delayed until May 1, 2019, the date other rules and amendments adopted by the WEA R&O were made effective (30 months from the publication of the WEA R&O in the Federal Register, published at 81 FR 75710).

    35. It is further ordered that the provisions of this Order on Reconsideration will become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

    36. It is further ordered that, effective upon the adoption of this order, that the requirements imposed by 47 CFR 10.441, published at 81 FR 75710, are waived to the extent set forth in this Order.

    The rules in this part are issued pursuant to the authority contained in the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, Title VI of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Public Law 109-347, Titles I through III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Executive Order 13407 of June 26, 2006, Public Alert and Warning System, 71 FR 36975 (2006).

    List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 10

    Wireless emergency alerts.

    47 CFR Part 11

    Emergency alert system.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25673 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 51 and 69 [WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58; CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 16-33] Rate-of-Return Reform AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's Rate-of Return Reform Order. The reforms adopted in this Order require rate-of-return LECs to make tariff filings with the necessary tariff materials outside of the normal tariff filing period. This document is consistent with the Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the rules.

    DATES:

    The amendments to 47 CFR 51.917(f)(4), 69.4(k), 69.132, 69.311, and 69.416, published at 81 FR 24281, April 25, 2016, are effective December 4, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Goodman, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1549, or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on September 20, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to §§ 51.917(f)(4), 69.4(k), 69.132, 69.311, and 69.416 of the Commission's rules as a revision to OMB Control Number 3060-0298 (Part 61, Tariffs (Other than the Tariff Review Plan)). Also on September 20, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information requirements relating to §§ 51.917(f)(4), 69.4(k), 69.132, 69.311, and 69.416 of the Commission's rules as a revision to 3060-0400 (Part 61, Tariff Review Plan (TRP)). The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0400, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

    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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on September 20, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in §§ 51.917(f)(4), 69.4(k), 69.132, 69.311, and 69.416 of the Commission's rules. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0298 and 3060-0400.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0298.

    OMB Approval Date: September 20, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.

    Title: Part 61, Tariffs (Other than Tariff Review Plan) (TRP).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,840 respondents; 4,277 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 hours-50 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, biennial, and one-time reporting requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 201-203, 208, 251-271, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 156,080 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $1,307,670.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: On March 23, 2016 the Commission released the Rate of Return Order, FCC 16-33, which reformed universal service for rate-of-return local exchange carriers (LECs). These reforms require approximately 95 rate-of-return LECs to make one-time tariff filings and NECA to make two tariff filings with the necessary support materials outside the normal tariff filing period.

    Part 61 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 61, prescribes the framework for the initial establishment of and subsequent revisions to tariffs. The information collected through the carriers' tariffs and supporting documentation is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0400.

    OMB Approval Date: September 20, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.

    Title: Part 61, Tariff Review Plan (TRP).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,840 respondents; 5,437 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours-53 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, biennial, and one-time reporting requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, and 251(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 66,000 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: On March 23, 2016 the Commission released the Rate of Return Order, FCC 16-33, which reformed universal service for rate-of-return local exchange carriers (LECs). These reforms require rate-of-return LECs to make tariff filings with the necessary support materials outside the normal tariff filing period.

    Sections 201, 202, and 203 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, require common carriers to establish just and reasonable charges, practices, and regulations for their interstate telecommunications services. For services that are still covered under section 203, tariff schedules containing charges, rates, rules, and regulations must be filed with the Commission. Part 61 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 61, prescribes the framework for the establishment of and subsequent revisions to tariffs. Certain LECs are required to submit a biennial or annual Tariff Review Plan (TRP) in partial fulfillment of cost support material required by part 61. The Commission developed the TRP to minimize reporting burdens on reporting incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). TRPs set forth the summary material ILECs file to support revisions to their interstate access service tariffs. For those services still requiring cost support, TRPs assist the Commission in determining whether ILEC access charges are just and reasonable as required under the Act.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25949 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 161020985-7181-02] RIN 0648-XF859 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; reallocation.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from trawl catcher vessels (3,083 metric tons (mt)), American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/processors (205 mt), and jig vessels (94 mt) to hook-and-line catcher/processors (2,732 mt) and pot catcher/processors (650 mt) in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to allow the 2017 total allowable catch of Pacific cod to be harvested.

    DATES:

    Effective November 29, 2017through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) in the BSAI specified for trawl catcher is 47,246 metric tons (mt), for AFA trawl catcher/processors is 4,917 mt, and for jig vessels is 107 mt as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and reallocations (82 FR 47162, October 11, 2017, 82 FR 43503, September 18, 2017 and 82 FR 41899, September 5, 2017). The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that trawl catcher vessels will not be able to harvest 3,083 mt of the remaining 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(9), The Regional Administrator has determined that AFA trawl catcher/processors will not be able to harvest 205 mt of the remaining 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(7). The Regional Administrator has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 94 mt of the remaining 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(1).

    Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii), taking into account the capabilities of the sectors to harvest reallocated amounts of Pacific cod, and following the hierarchies set forth in § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A) and § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(B), NMFS reallocates 2,732 mt of Pacific cod to hook-and-line catcher/processors and 650 mt to pot catcher/processors.

    The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and two inseason adjustments (82 FR 8905, February 1, 2017 and 82 FR 41899, September 5, 2017) are revised as follows: 44,163 mt for trawl catcher vessels, 4,712 for AFA trawl catcher/processors, 13 mt for jig vessels, 106,444 mt for hook-and-line catcher/processors, and 4,844 mt pot catcher/processors.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from trawl catcher vessels, AFA catcher/processors, and jig gear to hook-and-line catcher/processors and pot catcher/processors in the BSAI management area. Since most of these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 21, 2017.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 29, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26044 Filed 11-29-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 231 Monday, December 4, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 906 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-17-0037; SC17-906-1 PR] Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.09 to $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled under the Marketing Order (Order). The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. This proposed rule also makes administrative revisions to the subpart headings to bring the language into conformance with the Office of Federal Register requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected].

    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 action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposal is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Part 906, (hereinafter referred to as 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 Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of oranges and grapefruit operating within the production area.

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed 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 proposal 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 proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Marketing Order now in effect, Texas orange and grapefruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable oranges and grapefruit beginning on August 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

    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. Such 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 proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.09 to $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled.

    The Texas orange and grapefruit Marketing Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of Texas oranges and grapefruit. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

    For the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

    The Committee met on August 8, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $751,148. The assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.07 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reflect that they would not be funding the Mexican fruit fly control program, reducing their budget by more than $595,000.

    The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were $77,200, $50,000, and $23,700, respectively.

    The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of 7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments calculated at $150,000 (7.5 million × $0.02), along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $152,920. Funds in the reserve (currently $282,572) would be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 906.35).

    The assessment rate recommended in this proposed rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

    Although this assessment rate would be effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-18 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

    This proposed rule also makes administrative revisions to the subpart headings of the regulations.

    Initial 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 proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial 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 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the Marketing Order. Small agricultural producers 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 Committee data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2015-16 season was approximately $17.48 per box and total shipments were 7.5 million boxes. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers (13), and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of greater than $7,500,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus handlers may be classified as large business entities.

    In addition, based on information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the weighted grower price for Texas citrus during the 2015-16 season was approximately $14.64 per box. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus producers may be classified as small business entities.

    This proposal would decrease the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.09 to $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas citrus. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent handled. The assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.07 lower than the 2016-17 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2017-18 fiscal period is estimated at 7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons. Thus, the $0.02 rate should provide $150,000 in assessment income (7.5 million × $0.02). Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve (currently $282,572), would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

    The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were $77,200, $50,000, and $23,700, respectively.

    The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reflect that it would not be funding the Mexican fruit fly control program, reducing its budget by more than $595,000.

    Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee, and the Research Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these committees who reviewed the relative value of various activities to the Texas citrus industry. These committees determined that all program activities were adequately funded and essential to the functionality of the Order, thus no alternate expenditure levels were deemed appropriate. Additionally, alternate assessment rates of $0.01 and $0.015 per 7/10 bushel-carton were discussed. However, it was determined that these lower assessment rates would draw too heavily from reserves, roughly $78,000 and $43,000, respectively. The proposed rate of $0.02 per 7/10 bushel-carton would draw an anticipated $2,800 from reserves, thereby leaving reserves intact for future needs.

    Based on these discussions and estimated shipments, the recommended assessment rate of $0.02 would provide $150,000 in assessment income. The Committee determined that assessment revenue, along with funds from reserves and interest income, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2017-18 fiscal period.

    A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the average grower price for the 2017-18 season should be approximately $15.50 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue would be about 0.1 percent.

    This proposed rule would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may also reduce the burden on producers.

    The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 8, 2017, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this proposed rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

    This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit 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.

    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.

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

    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.

    A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate since the fiscal period began August 1, 2017, and the Order requires that the rate of assessment apply to all assessable oranges and grapefruit handled during such fiscal period. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this rule.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906

    Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is amended as follows:

    PART 906—ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY IN TEXAS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 906 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    [Subpart Redesignated as Subpart A] 2. Redesignate “Subpart—Order Regulating Handling” as “Subpart A—Order Regulating Handling.” [Subpart Redesignated as Subpart B and Amended] 3. Redesignate “Subpart—Rules and Regulations” as Subpart B and revise heading to read as follows: Subpart B—Administrative Requirements 4. Section 906.235 is revised to read as follows:
    § 906.235 Assessment rate.

    On and after August 1, 2017, an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent is established for oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

    [Subpart Redesignated as Subpart C] 5. Redesignate “Subpart—Container and Pack Requirements” as “Subpart C—Container and Pack Requirements.” Dated: November 22, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25737 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 986 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-17-0039; SC17-986-3 PR] 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:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule invites comments on the establishment of reporting requirements under the Federal marketing order for pecans (Order). These reporting requirements would enable collection of information from handlers on: Pecans received; pecans purchased outside the United States; shipments and inventory of pecans; pecans exported by country of destination; and pecans exported for shelling and returned to the United States. This information would be used to provide important statistical reports to the industry, meet requirements under the Order, and to help guide future marketing efforts. This proposal also announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget of a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by February 2, 2018. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden must be received by February 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposal will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    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 action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j).This proposal 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 American Pecan Council (Council) locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of pecans operating within the production area and one public member.

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed 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) has exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

    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 proposed rule would establish reporting requirements under the Order. This proposed action would require all pecan handlers to submit to the Council reports on pecans received, shipped, held in inventory, exported for sale or shelling, and purchased from outside the United States. This information would be used by the Council to provide statistical reports to the industry, meet requirements under the Order, and help guide future marketing efforts. This proposal was unanimously recommended by the Council at its April 17, 2017, meeting.

    Section 2(4) of the Act specifies that one of its stated policies is to establish and maintain orderly marketing conditions for certain agricultural commodities that will provide, in the interests of producers and consumers, an orderly flow of the supply of such commodities to market to avoid unreasonable fluctuations in supply and prices. Section 8(d)(1) of the Act specifies that the Secretary may require all handlers subject to a marketing order to provide USDA with such information as is necessary for it to ascertain and determine the degree to which the agreement has been carried out or effectuated the declared policy of the Act.

    Sections 986.75, 986.76, and 986.77 of the Order provide authority to the Council to require handlers to submit reports of inventory, merchantable pecans handled, and pecans received by handlers, respectively, on such dates as the Council may prescribe. Section 986.78 further provides, with the approval of the Secretary, authority for the Council to collect other reports and information from handlers needed to perform its duties. This proposed rule would use these authorities to establish new §§ 986.177 and 986.178 under the administrative provisions of the Order. These new sections would require handlers of pecans to report to the Council on a monthly basis: Pecans received, shipped, held in inventory, exported for sale or shelling, and purchased from outside the United States, using five specific Council forms.

    At its November 16, 2016, meeting, the first meeting following the promulgation of the Order, the Council discussed its initial budget, assessment rates, and necessary reporting requirements to establish a program that is efficient and responsive to industry needs. During these discussions, the Council appointed 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 proposed 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 that the industry was more than halfway through the fiscal year at that time, the Council recommended dividing the reporting requirements into the five forms needed beginning with the 2017-2018 fiscal year and the two forms needed beginning with the 2016-2017 fiscal year. The two forms required for the 2016-2017 fiscal year are being considered in a separate rulemaking action.

    This proposed rule would add five new reporting requirements and five new forms to the administrative provisions under the Order by adding §§ 986.177 and 986.178. Detailed information on the reporting burden that would be created by these new forms is discussed later in this document.

    During the formal rulemaking hearing to promulgate the Order, it was stated that the data collection component was one of the most important aspects of the Order. Concerns were also expressed regarding the accuracy and availability of industry data, and the impact those have on making good business decisions.

    Currently, most available reports on domestic pecan production are issued annually and often long after the marketing year has been completed. Additionally, the reporting of this information is currently voluntary, so not all handlers are reporting, which impacts the accuracy of the available information. Some aggregate import and export data are available, but this information too is usually available on an annual basis, or reported several months after the shipments have been made. Additionally, some domestic production is shipped outside of the country for shelling and then returned to the United States for sale or further processing. There is concern this volume is not being properly accounted for, and is negatively impacting the accuracy of the industry information currently available.

    The Council agreed these reporting requirements would be necessary to develop accurate reports for the industry regarding pecans being produced and handled in the United States, and recognized the value to the industry of such reports. Having accurate and timely information on the total supply of pecans moving into and out of the country would also assist the industry in managing available supply and in making marketing decisions. Further, collecting this information monthly would allow the Council to provide key data regarding total supply and inventory to the industry in a more timely fashion throughout the season.

    The Council also recognized that § 986.65 of the Order requires the Council to provide a report and recommendation to the Secretary on the Council's proposed marketing policy for the next fiscal year. The report is required to include, in part, an estimate of production; improved, native, and substandard pecans; handler inventory; and trade supply, taking into consideration imported pecans. In addition to providing important information for industry reports, the reporting requirements covered in this proposed action would provide the information needed to develop the marketing policy.

    Two specific monthly reporting requirements would be added to the administrative provisions under the Order in a new § 986.177, a summary report of domestic pecans received, and a report of pecans purchased outside the United States. The summary report of domestic pecans received would include information on the handler submitting the form, the month covered by the report, the total weight and type of inshell pecans received, and the weight by variety of improved pecans received. In addition, the form would also include information regarding total assessments owed and total pounds reported to date.

    The information on this form would provide the Council with the volume of pecans received by handlers each month throughout the season. This information would be used to track the available supply of pecans each month, and the overall crop as it is delivered to handlers. The Council would then be able to use the information to develop its own reports that would provide the industry with an overview of market information for the predominant varieties, including volume by variety, which could assist in the development of marketing strategies.

    The Council also intends to use this form to facilitate the collection of assessments on a monthly basis throughout the season. Using the form, handlers would be able to calculate their assessments due based on the pecans received as listed on the report. Handlers would be required to pay to the Council the assessments owed on the pecans received by the due date of the summary report.

    In its discussion of the report of pecans purchased outside the United States, the Council agreed it would be important to have information regarding the volume of pecans being imported by production area handlers. The monthly report of pecans purchased outside the United States would include the name of the handler importing pecans, the month covered by the report, the date imported, country of origin, volume, and variety of pecans imported.

    As production of pecans abroad has increased, there has been an increase in pecans imported into the United States. One Council member stated that the domestic industry is currently shelling and processing as much as 70 to 75 percent of Mexican-grown pecans, and that Mexican pecans now account for nearly 50 percent of sales in the United States. Consequently, having information regarding the volume of imported pecans is essential when calculating available supply. Collecting this information would greatly improve the accuracy of reports to the industry as it would include information regarding both domestic and imported pecans.

    One of the Council's main goals in developing these reporting requirements is to deliver to the industry accurate reports regarding the marketplace and supply of pecans to assist the industry in making its marketing decisions throughout the year. The Council believes having accurate information regarding imported pecans is an essential part of reaching this goal. Further, collecting this information would provide the industry with valuable data regarding the timing and volume of pecans imported into the United States. Members also agreed having this information would assist the Council in developing its marketing policy as required under the Order.

    Three additional reporting requirements would be added to the administrative provisions in a new § 986.178: Reports of shipments and inventory, exports by country of destination, and inshell pecans exported to Mexico for shelling. The report of shipments and inventory would include information on the handler submitting the form, the month covered by the report, shipments of shelled and inshell pecans, current inventory, and pecans in inventory already committed for shipment.

    The Council believes this form would provide beneficial information regarding shipments completed and volume in inventory. While there is currently some limited information available regarding pecans in cold storage, this information does not delineate between available inventory and inventory that is already committed for shipment. By collecting this information from handlers, this report, in conjunction with the data regarding pecans received, would allow the Council to provide the industry with inventory reports that are more accurate, and that provide a clearer picture of available supply. This data on the available volume of pecans would provide the industry with the information needed to make better marketing decisions.

    When discussing a reporting requirement for exported pecans, the Council expressed the industry's need for more information concerning international trade markets and export trends. The report of exports by country of destination would include information on the handler submitting the report, the month of the report, and the weight of all shipments of pecans, inshell or shelled, by classification, and by country of destination.

    The Council estimated that prior to 2005, around 10 percent of domestic production was being exported. Since then, exports have grown considerably and now account for between 40 and 50 percent of production. The recommended form would be used to generate reports throughout the season providing industry members with information on where product is being sold and in what volume. Further, the Council could use this information to determine the effectiveness of any international promotional efforts and to consider opportunities for promotion and market expansion.

    Some of the pecans shipped outside the United States are exported just for shelling and then returned to the United States for further use. The Council recommended an additional reporting form to capture this information. Specifically, the Council recommended collecting information on pecans exported to Mexico for shelling and then returned to the United States. The Council decided to limit the reporting to Mexico since the vast majority of pecans exported for this purpose are being sent to Mexico because of its proximity and cost efficiencies. The report of inshell pecans exported to Mexico for shelling would include information on the handler submitting the report, the month covered by the report, dates of shipments, the total weight of inshell pecans shipped for shelling, and the weight of shelled pecans returned to the United States.

    In discussing this reporting requirement, the Council recognized that in addition to shelling some pecans from the production area, Mexico also exports pecans to the United States. This makes it difficult to determine how much of the import volume reported from Mexico is represented by domestic product after shelling. It was expressed that without this report, the accuracy of data regarding both reported exported and imported product could be compromised. Pecans exported for shelling could be counted as exports, and then counted again as imports when returned to the United States. This reporting requirement would help reduce the possibility of double counting of these pecans, and would help improve the accuracy of the overall information on supply.

    The Council selected the tenth day of the month following the month of the activity as the due date for all five reports. 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. The five monthly reports would be used during the 2017-2018 and subsequent seasons.

    This proposed action would require pecan handlers to provide the Council with monthly reports on pecans received, shipped, held in inventory, exported for sale or shelling, and purchased from outside the United States. By establishing these reporting requirements, the Council would be able to gather and disseminate this information in accurate market reports. Further, this information would be used to create a marketing policy each year as required under the Order.

    Initial 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 proposed action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial 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 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 pecan marketing Order. Small agricultural growers are defined by the Small Business Administration 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 2015-2016 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, ($2.78 per pound multiplied by 254 million pounds) the total value of production in 2015 was $706.12 million. 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 (a substantial number) 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 proposed rule would establish reporting requirements under the Order. This proposed action would require pecan handlers to provide the Council with reports of pecans received, shipped, held in inventory, exported for sale or shelling, and purchased from outside the United States. The Council would use this information to provide important statistical reports to the industry, to meet requirements under the Order, and to help guide future marketing efforts. This rule would establish new §§ 986.177 and 986.178 under the administrative provisions of the Order. The authority for this proposed action is provided for in Section 8(d)(1) of the Act and §§ 986.75, 986.76, 986.77, and 986.78 of the Order.

    Requiring monthly reports of pecans received, shipped, held in inventory, exported for sale or shelling, and purchased from outside the United States would 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 proposed action should also help the entire industry by providing comprehensive data on pecans received, shipped, held in inventory, exported for sale or shelling, and purchased from outside the United States. 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 would provide accurate information regarding available inventory, help with marketing and planning for the industry, provide important information for the collection of assessments, and assist with preparing the annual marketing policy required by the Order. The benefits of this proposed rule are expected to be equally available to all pecan growers and handlers, regardless of their size.

    The Council discussed other alternatives to this proposed action. The Council considered listing additional varieties on the summary report of pecans received. However, after discussion the Council determined a simpler version with the major commercial varieties and room for handlers to enter additional varieties as needed would be less burdensome. The Council also considered different due dates for these monthly reports, including a due date of the first, the third and the fifth day after the month of the activity. However, after some discussion, it was determined some handlers may have difficulty meeting these time frames. The 15th day of the month was also suggested, but Council members thought this would delay the issuance of reports, and negatively impact their value. Consequently, the Council agreed to set the due date for all five forms at the tenth of the month. The Council also considered the value and importance of each of the forms, and if all should be approved. However, the Council agreed each of the forms recommended provide important information for the industry and for administering the Order. Therefore, the alternatives were rejected.

    This proposal would establish five new reporting requirements and five new Council forms. Therefore, this proposed rule would impose an increase in the reporting burden for all handlers, which is discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this document.

    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 proposed rule.

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

    Further, 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. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this proposed action on small businesses.

    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.

    A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces AMS's intent to request approval from OMB for a new information collection under OMB No. 0581-NEW. It will be merged with the forms currently approved under OMB No. 0581-0291 “Federal Marketing Order for Pecans.”

    Title: 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; Marketing Order No. 986.

    OMB Number: 0581-NEW.

    Type of Request: New Collection.

    Abstract: The information requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the pecan marketing order program.

    On April 17, 2017, the Council unanimously recommended that all pecan handlers subject to the Order provide the Council with a monthly record of pecans received. This form, titled “Summary Report U.S. Pecans Received for Your Own Account,” would be submitted directly to the Council by handlers by the tenth day of the month following the month the pecans were received. This information collection would gather data on the total pounds received each month by variety and on the related assessments due.

    The Council also recommended that all handlers subject to the Order submit a monthly report of product shipped, transferred, or committed. This form, titled “Report of Shipments and Inventory on Hand,” would be submitted directly to the Council by handlers by the tenth day of the month following the activity. This information collection would provide the Council with a monthly record of how much of the current crop has been shipped, is committed to be shipped or is being held in inventory. It would provide the volume of available inventory, which would be needed to make marketing decisions.

    The Council also recommended that handlers provide the Council with a record of exports by type and destination. This form, titled “Exports by Country of Destination,” would be submitted directly to the Council by handlers by the tenth day of the month following the shipment(s). This information collection would provide the Council with up-to-date information on where exported pecans are being sold. This information would improve data collection by accounting for pecans moving outside the United States and is necessary for developing the Council's marketing policy as required by the Order.

    The Council also recommended that handlers submit a report of pecans exported to Mexico for the purpose of shelling and then returned to the United States. This form, titled “Inshell Pecans Exported to Mexico for Shelling and Returned to the United States as Shelled Meats,” would be submitted directly to the Council by handlers by the tenth day of the month following the shipment(s) out of and into the United States. This reporting requirement would help reduce the possibility of double counting of these pecans as both exported and imported product, and would help improve the accuracy of the overall information on supply.

    The Council also recommended that all handlers subject to the Order submit a monthly report that would capture information on the volume of imported pecans. This form, titled “Pecans Purchased Outside the United States,” would be submitted directly to the Council by handlers by the tenth day of the month following the receipt of such pecans. This information collection would assist in quantifying the volume of imported pecans on the market, provide the industry with a more accurate estimate of total supply, and assist with the development of the marketing policy required under the Order.

    The information collected would only be used by authorized representatives of the USDA, including the AMS Specialty Crops Program regional and headquarters staff, and authorized employees of the Council. Authorized Council employees would be the primary users of the information, and the AMS would be the secondary users. The Council's staff would compile the information and utilize it to account for pecans received, shipped, held in inventory, exported for sale or shelling, and purchased from outside the United States. All proprietary information would be kept confidential in accordance with the Act and the Order.

    The proposed request for new information collection under the Order is as follows:

    Summary Report—U.S. Pecans Received for Your Own Account

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.33 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of pecans in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 250.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 990 hours.

    Pecans Purchased Outside the United States

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.33 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of pecans in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 59.4 hours.

    Report of Shipments and Inventory on Hand

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.33 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of pecans in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 250.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 990 hours.

    Exports by Country of Destination

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.25 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of pecans in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 35.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 105 hours.

    Inshell Pecans Exported to Mexico for Shelling and Returned to the United States as Shelled Meats

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.5 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of pecans in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 90 hours.

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-NEW and the Marketing Order for 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, and should be sent to the USDA in care of the Docket Clerk at the previously-mentioned address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments received will become a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the address of the Docket Clerk or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    If this proposed rule is finalized, this information collection will be merged with the forms currently approved under OMB No. 0581-0291 “Federal Marketing Order for Pecans.”

    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 proposed to be 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 § 986.177 to Subpart B—Administrative Provisions to read as follows:
    § 986.177 Reports of pecans received by handlers

    (a) Summary report U.S. pecans received for your own account. Handlers shall submit to the Council, by the tenth day of the month, a summary report of inshell domestic pecans received during the preceding month. 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. The report shall be submitted to the Council on APC Form 1 and contain the following information:

    (1) The name and address of the handler;

    (2) The month covered by the report;

    (3) The total weight and type of inshell pecans received, and the weight by variety for improved pecans received during the reporting period;

    (4) The total weight and type of inshell pecans received, and the weight by variety for improved pecans received year to date; and,

    (5) Assessments due on pecans received during the reporting period to be paid by the due date of the report.

    (b) Pecans purchased outside the United States. Handlers shall submit to the Council, by the tenth day of the month, a summary report of shelled and inshell pecans imported during the preceding month. 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. The report shall be submitted to the Council on APC Form 6 and contain the following information:

    (1) The name and address of the handler;

    (1) The month covered by the report;

    (3) The date the pecans were imported;

    (4) The country of origin; and,

    (5) The total weight of shelled and inshell pecans received, and the weight by variety for improved pecans received.

    3. Add § 986.178 to Subpart B—Administrative Provisions to read as follows:
    § 986.178 Other reports

    (a) Report of shipments and inventory on hand. Handlers shall submit to the Council, by the tenth day of the month following the month of activity, a report of all shipments, inventory, and committed inventory for pecans. 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. The report shall be submitted to the Council on APC Form 2 and contain the following information:

    (1) The name and address of the handler;

    (2) The month covered by the report;

    (3) The weight of all shipments of pecans, inshell and shelled, and inter-handler transfers shipped and received during the reporting period;

    (4) The weight of all shipments of pecans, inshell and shelled, and inter-handler transfers shipped and received in the previous month and year to date;

    (5) Total inventory held by handler;

    (6) All the inventory committed (pecans not shipped, but sold or otherwise obligated) whether for domestic sale or export; and,

    (7) The weight of all shelled or inshell pecans under contract for purchase from other handlers.

    (b) Exports by country of destination. Handlers shall submit to the Council, by the tenth day of the month following the month of shipment, a report of exports. 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. The report shall be reported to the Council on APC Form 3 and contain the following information:

    (1) The name and address of the handler;

    (2) The month covered by the report;

    (3) The total weight of pecans shipped for export, whether inshell, shelled, or substandard during the reporting period;

    (4) The total weight of pecans shipped for export, whether inshell, shelled, or substandard during the previous period and year to date; and,

    (5) The destination(s) of such exports.

    (c) Inshell pecans exported to Mexico for shelling and returned to the United States as shelled meats. Handlers shall submit to the Council, by the tenth day of the month following the month of shipment, a report of all inshell pecans exported to Mexico for shelling and returned to the United States as shelled pecans. 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. The report shall be submitted to the Council on APC Form 5 and contain the following information:

    (1) The name and address of the handler;

    (2) The month covered by the report;

    (3) The date of inshell shipment(s);

    (4) The weight of pecans exported for shelling;

    (5) The date shelled pecans returned to the United States after shelling;

    (6) The weight of shelled pecans returned to the United States after shelling; and

    (7) The total weight of inshell pecans exported to Mexico for shelling, and shelled pecans returned from Mexico, year to date.

    Dated: November 22, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25738 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1119; Product Identifier 2017-CE-037-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Embraer S.A. Models EMB-500 and EMB-505 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as improperly tied castle nuts on the aileron, rudder, and elevator trim tab (or autotab) attachment bolts. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Embraer S.A., Phenom Maintenance Support, Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, São José dos Campos—SP—12227-901, P.O. Box 36/2, Brasil; phone: +55 12 3927 1000; fax: +55 12 3927-2619; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.embraer.com.br/en-US/Pages/home.aspx. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1119; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1119; Product Identifier 2017-CE-037-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued AD No.: 2017-11-01, dated November 10, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Embraer S.A. Models EMB-500 and EMB-505 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    This [ANAC] AD results of a report of one airplane having improperly tied castle nut on the aileron, rudder and elevator trim tab (or autotab) attachment bolts. A disconnected surface may cause an increase in dynamic loads and probable flutter, which may cause structural failure and possible loss of control of the airplane.

    Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same type and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this [ANAC] AD in the indicated time limit without prior notice.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1119. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Embraer S.A. has issued PHENOM by Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 500-27-A026, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017; and PHENOM by Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 505-27-A028, Revision 2, dated October 6, 2017. For the applicable models, the service information describes procedures for inspection of the aileron trim tab, rudder trim tab, and elevator trim tab, and, if required, application of torque and installation of a cotter pin. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 114 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $9,690, or $85 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $50, for a cost of $305 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Embraer S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2017-1119; Product Identifier 2017-CE-037-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 18, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Models EMB-500 and EMB-505 airplanes, serial numbers 50000246, 50000267, 50000286, 50000289, 50000291, 50000299, 50000304, 50000305, 50000306, 50000310, 50000348, 50000359, 50000368, 50000370, 50000372, 50000376, 50000377, 50000378, 50000379, 50000380, 50500118, 50500122, 50500148, 50500151, 50500167, 50500176, 50500179, 50500185, 50500188, 50500191, 50500197, 50500203, 50500207, 50500209, 50500212, 50500214, 50500215, 50500219, 50500225, 50500226, 50500231, 50500242, 50500244, 50500246, 50500248, 50500250, 50500256, 50500260, 50500266, 50500273, 50500275, 50500277, 50500280, 50500282, 50500285, 50500287, 50500288, 50500289, 50500292, 50500293, 50500294, 50500296, 50500297, 50500298, 50500300, 50500302, 50500304, 50500306, 50500309, 50500311, 50500317, 50500318, 50500323, 50500328, 50500331, 50500333, 50500335, 50500338, 50500340, 50500344, 50500345, 50500348, 50500351, 50500357, 50500361, 50500362, 50500363, 50500364, 50500365, 50500367, 50500368, 50500371, 50500372, 50500379, 50500381, 50500382, 50500385, 50500386, 50500390, 50500391, 50500394, 50500395, 50500397, 50500398, 50500399, 50500400, 50500402, 50500403, 50500404, 50500407, 50500410, 50500415, 50500418, and 50500424, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as improperly tied castle nuts on the aileron, rudder and elevator trim tab (or autotab) attachment bolts. We are issuing this proposed AD to inspect the aileron trim tab, rudder trim tab and elevator trim tab (or autotab), and correct any discrepancy, which if not corrected, may cause an increase in dynamic loads and possible flutter, leading to structural failure and loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions in PHENOM by Embraer Alert Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 500-27-A026, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017; or PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No.: 505-27-A028, Revision 2, dated October 6, 2017, as applicable:

    (1) Within the next 25 hours time in service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the aileron trim tab, rudder trim tab, and elevator trim tab attachment points to make sure the cotter pin is installed on the castle nut of the attaching bolts.

    (2) If any discrepancy is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, correct the discrepancy.

    (g) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service Information

    This AD allows credit for the actions required in paragraph (f) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD following PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No. 500-27-A026, original issue, dated September 29, 2017; PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No. 505-27-A028, original issue, dated September 28, 2017; or PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB 505-27-A028, Revision 01, dated September 29, 2017; as applicable.

    (h) Reporting Requirement

    Although PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No.: 500-27-A026, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017; and PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No.: 505-27-A028, Revision 2, dated October 6, 2017; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA; or Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil.

    (j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, AD No.: 2017-11-01, dated November 10, 2017; PHENOM by Embraer Alert Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 500-27-A026, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017; and PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No.: 505-27-A028, Revision 2, dated October 6, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1119. For service information related to this AD, contact Embraer S.A., Phenom Maintenance Support, Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, São José dos Campos—SP—12227-901, P.O. Box 36/2, Brasil; phone: +55 12 3927 1000; fax: +55 12 3927-2619; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.embraer.com.br/en-US/Pages/home.aspx. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 21, 2017. Melvin J. Johnson, Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25888 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 884 [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6538] Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Reclassification of Single-Use Female Condom, To Be Renamed Single-Use Internal Condom AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to reclassify single-use female condoms, renaming the device to “single-use internal condom,” a postamendments class III device (product code MBU), into class II (special controls) subject to premarket notification (510(k)). FDA is also identifying the proposed special controls that the Agency believes are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA is proposing this reclassification on its own initiative based on new information. FDA is also proposing to amend the existing device identification for “female condom,” a preamendments class III device (product code OBY), by renaming the device “multiple-use female condom,” to distinguish it from the “single-use internal condom.” If finalized, this order will reclassify single-use female condoms from class III to class II and reduce regulatory burdens on industry as these types of devices will no longer be required to submit a premarket approval application (PMA) but can instead submit a less burdensome 510(k) before marketing their device.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed order by February 2, 2018. Please see section IX of this document for the proposed effective date of any final order that may publish based on this proposed order.

    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 February 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of February 2, 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 Rulemaking 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 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 Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6538 for “Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Reclassification of Single-Use Female Condom, To Be Renamed Single-Use Internal Condom.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monica Garcia, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G215, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-2791, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background—Regulatory Authorities

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended, establishes a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval).

    Under section 513(d) of the FD&C Act, devices that were in commercial distribution before the enactment of the 1976 amendments, May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as “preamendments devices”), are classified after FDA has: (1) Received a recommendation from a device classification panel (an FDA advisory committee) (the Panel); (2) published the Panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation classifying the device; and (3) published a final regulation classifying the device. FDA has classified most preamendments devices under these procedures.

    Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as “postamendments devices”) are automatically classified by section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).

    A postamendments device that has been initially classified in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act may be reclassified into class I or class II under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act. On July 9, 2012, Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144) was enacted. Section 608(a) of FDASIA amended section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, changing the process for reclassifying a device from rulemaking to an administrative order. Section 513(e) provides that FDA may, by administrative order, reclassify a device based upon “new information.” The term “new information,” as used in section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, includes information developed as a result of a reevaluation of the data before the Agency when the device was originally classified, as well as information not presented, not available, or not developed at the time. To change the classification of the device, the proposed new class must have sufficient regulatory controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.

    Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available regulatory authority (see Bell v. Goddard, 366 F.2d 177, 181 (7th Cir. 1966); Ethicon, Inc. v. FDA, 762 F. Supp. 382, 388-391 (D.D.C. 1991)), or in light of changes in “medical science” (Upjohn Co. v. Finch, 422 F.2d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 1970)). Whether data before the Agency are old or new, the “new information” to support reclassification under section 513(f)(3) must be “valid scientific evidence”, as defined in section 513(a)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 860.7(c)(2). (See, e.g., General Medical Co. v. FDA, 770 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Contact Lens Mfrs. Assoc. v. FDA, 766 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1986)).

    FDA relies upon “valid scientific evidence” in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be considered in the reclassification process, the “valid scientific evidence” upon which the Agency relies must be publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending PMA (see section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)). Section 520(h)(4) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may use, for reclassification of a device, certain information in a PMA 6 years after the application has been approved. This includes information from clinical and preclinical tests or studies that demonstrate the safety or effectiveness of the device, but does not include descriptions of methods of manufacture or product composition and other trade secrets.

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that a class II device may be exempted from the premarket notification requirements, if the Agency determines that premarket notification is not necessary to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    II. Device Description and Regulatory History

    A single-use female condom is a sheath-like device that is inserted into the vagina prior to the initiation of coitus and discarded at its conclusion. It includes a mechanism (e.g., flexible rings) to hold the device in place during sexual intercourse. The device is a mechanical barrier that is intended to protect the user from sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and prevent pregnancy. The female condom is distinct from the male condom, which is a sheath that completely covers the penis, because it is inserted internally prior to intercourse. Based on the differences in technology, these devices have different failure modes and therefore have distinct classifications. Male condoms that completely cover the penis with a closely fitting membrane are regulated as class II devices under §§ 884.5300 and 884.5310 (21 CFR 884.5300 and 884.5310). A single-use female condom (product code MBU) is a postamendments device currently regulated as a class III device under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA first learned of the device in January 1989, when FDA received a 510(k) from the Wisconsin Pharmacal Company, LLC (WPC). The device was intended to line the vaginal wall during sexual intercourse for purposes of contraception and STI prophylaxis. At that time, the device was named the WPC-333 device but later renamed the Femshield/Reality Female Condom. WPC purported in its 510(k) that the Reality Female Condom was substantially equivalent to the male condom identified in § 884.5300, as well as to a preamendments female condom known as the Gee Bee Ring. WPC provided documentation in the 510(k) that indicated the Gee Bee Ring was a pouch-like device designed to line the wall of the vagina during coitus for contraceptive (pregnancy prevention) and prophylactic (prevention of STI transmission) purposes. However, in contrast to the Reality Female Condom, the Gee Bee Ring was indicated for reuse (versus single-use) and was made using animal tissue (versus polyurethane).

    Before receiving WPC's 510(k), FDA was unaware of the existence, commercial distribution, and use of the Gee Bee Ring as a female condom. FDA verified the preamendments status and uses of the Gee Bee Ring, and presented this information to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel (referred to as the Classification Panel) on March 7, 1989. The Classification Panel reviewed all available information concerning the classification of a sheath-like device that is inserted into the vagina prior to coitus for purposes of contraception and STI prophylaxis. The Classification Panel recommended that FDA classify this generic type of device as distinct from the male condom identified in § 884.5300. The Classification Panel also recommended that this device be classified into class III, because no published laboratory or clinical study data could be found that would allow FDA to establish special controls for the device, and the device is purported or represented to be for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health. FDA agreed with the Classification Panel's recommended classification, and in the Federal Register of June 10, 1999 (64 FR 31164), FDA published a proposed rule to create a new classification regulation (§ 884.5330 (21 CFR 884.5330)) for the female condom and classify the device in class III. FDA finalized this rule on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31454). The Gee Bee Ring is the only female condom regulated under § 884.5330 and is identified using FDA product code OBY. In the Federal Register of August 25, 2010 (75 FR 52294), FDA published a proposed rule to require the filing, under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)), of a PMA or notice of completion of a product development protocol for any female condom that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. FDA finalized this rule on August 16, 2011 (76 FR 50663) and noted that the Agency has no record of the Gee Bee Ring being marketed after it was classified in 2000.

    In April 1989, FDA completed its review of WPC's 510(k) and determined that the Reality Female Condom was not substantially equivalent to either the male condom identified in § 884.5300 or the Gee Bee Ring. As a result, in accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the Reality Female Condom was automatically classified into class III. On May 7, 1993, FDA approved the PMA for the Reality Female Condom (P910064) and subsequently FDA identified this device type with the product code MBU (Ref. 1). On April 14, 1995, FDA approved the PMA for the Femidom Female Condom (P940033), which is identical to the Reality Female Condom. In this PMA, WPC authorized Chartex International plc to incorporate information contained in its approved PMA for the Reality Female Condom (Ref. 2). On January 8, 2008, FDA received a PMA (P080002) from the Female Health Company for the FC2 Female Condom and approved it on March 10, 2009 (Ref. 3). The FC2 Female Condom is a modified version of the Reality Female Condom. Since the introduction of the FC2 Female Condom, the Reality Female Condom has been referred to as the FC1 Female Condom. The FC2 Female Condom is a specific example of a single-use female condom that is the subject of this reclassification and is currently the only FDA-approved single-use female condom that is being marketed in the United States.

    As part of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's 2014-2015 strategic priority “Strike the Right Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection,” a retrospective review of class III devices subject to PMA was completed to determine whether or not, based on our current understanding of the technology, reclassification may be appropriate. On April 29, 2015, FDA published a notice in the Federal Register entitled “Retrospective Review of Premarket Approval Application Devices; Striking the Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection” in which FDA announced plans to consider reclassifying single-use female condoms identified with the MBU product code from class III to class II (80 FR 23798). Following this notice, FDA received seven comments, six of which supported reclassification of MBU. One comment did not support reclassification because it was stated that FDA lacked information to determine what risks might exist for female condoms of different design, materials, and manufacturing processes. FDA considered all comments in proceeding with this proposed order to reclassify single-use female condoms from class III to class II.

    III. Proposed Reclassification and Summary of Reasons for Reclassification

    FDA is proposing to reclassify single-use female condoms from class III into class II because sufficient information exists to establish special controls. FDA believes that these special controls, together with general controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of the device's safety and effectiveness for single-use female condoms.

    In accordance with section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR part 860, subpart C, FDA is proposing to reclassify this postamendments class III device into class II (special controls). FDA believes that there is sufficient information from nonclinical and clinical data submitted in PMA applications P910064 (Ref. 1), P940033 (Ref. 2), and P080002 (Ref. 3), available to FDA under section 520(h)(4) of the FD&C Act; postmarket experience; and peer-reviewed literature (Refs. 4-7) to establish special controls that can effectively mitigate the risks to health of single-use female condoms that are identified in section IV. Absent the special controls identified in this proposed order, general controls applicable to the device are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    FDA is also proposing to amend the existing device identification for female condom (§ 884.5330), a preamendments class III device, by renaming the device “multiple-use female condom” to better distinguish it from the “single-use female condom” that is the subject of this reclassification. One difference between the preamendments female condom (product code OBY) and the postamendments female condom (product code MBU) is that the preamendments female condom is indicated to be cleaned at the conclusion of coitus and reused. Additionally, a minor revision to the identification language is being proposed to change the term “diseases” to “infections” to use more appropriate clinical terminology. This proposed revision does not substantively change the meaning. It will remain a class III device, as FDA has neither received nor identified valid scientific evidence from nonclinical or clinical studies that demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of that type of female condom. Additionally, FDA is unaware of valid scientific evidence regarding the reuse of condoms (female or male) that could be used to establish special control(s) for a multiple-use female condom to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.

    FDA is proposing to identify the single-use female condom that is the subject of this proposed order under the new name “single-use internal condom” to indicate that the new classification regulation includes the use of these devices inserted internally for vaginal and/or anal intercourse. This technology is distinct from that of male condoms, which completely cover the penis with a closely fitting membrane. This proposed classification does not include male condoms that are class II devices regulated under §§ 884.5300 and 884.5310. FDA believes use of this device for vaginal and anal intercourse engender the same risks to health (with the exception of the risk of pregnancy when used for anal intercourse) and that the proposed special controls can effectively mitigate those risks when the device is used for these purposes.

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, FDA does not intend to exempt the proposed class II devices from 510(k) requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a 510(k) and receive clearance prior to marketing the device.

    IV. Risks to Health

    After considering the information available to FDA from the recommendations of the Classification Panel for the classification of these devices (Refs. 8 and 9); data in PMA applications P910064, P940033, and P080002 available to FDA under section 520(h)(4) of the FD&C Act; postmarket experience; and peer-reviewed literature (Refs. 4-7), FDA determined that the probable risks to health associated with the use of single-use internal condoms are as follows:

    • Pregnancy—Slippage, breakage, misdirection, or invagination of the device during vaginal intercourse could result in the occurrence of an undesired pregnancy.

    • Transmission of infection—If the device fails due to slippage, breakage, misdirection, or invagination, contact with infected semen or vaginal secretions or vaginal/anal mucosa could result in the transmission of sexually-transmitted infections.

    • Adverse tissue reaction—If the patient-contacting materials of the device are not biocompatible, local tissue irritation and sensitization, cytotoxicity, or system toxicity could occur when the device contacts the vagina, cervix, anus, and external male and female genitalia.

    • Ulceration and other physical trauma—Use of the internal condom may cause abrasions, lacerations, bleeding, or other adverse effects to the vaginal, anal, or penile tissue if the device is not designed appropriately.

    V. Summary of Data Upon Which the Reclassification Is Based

    FDA has considered and analyzed the following information: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database; data contained in PMAs approved 6 or more years before the date of this proposed order (reviewed under section 520(h)(4) of the FD&C Act, also known as the 6-year rule) (Ref. 10); the published literature; and the recommendations of the Classification Panel and FC1 and FC2 Panels.

    Since 1993, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) has received one medical device report (MDR) regarding an adverse event associated with the use of an internal condom. This MDR reported injury following off-label use of the FC1 Female Condom during anal intercourse; the FC1 Female Condom is indicated for vaginal intercourse. Considering the number of internal condoms distributed in the United States since 1993 (approximately 3 to 4 million per year), the number of adverse events reported is low. FDA acknowledges that because internal condoms are over-the-counter devices, adverse events may be under reported.

    Starting in 1989, several Panel meetings were held to discuss the safety and effectiveness of the internal condom. During the March 7, 1989, meeting, the Classification Panel recommended that the internal condom be classified into class III due to the absence of testing and clinical medical data regarding the safety and effectiveness of the device. On January 31 and December 10, 1992, the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel (referred to as the “FC1 Panel”) was convened to discuss the safety and effectiveness of the FC1 Female Condom and provide recommendations to FDA regarding a specific PMA application (P910064). During these meetings, the FC1 Panel discussed the available nonclinical and clinical data on the FC1 Female Condom, which included an acute failure modes study and contraceptive effectiveness study. On December 10, 1992, the FC1 Panel expressed concern regarding the high failure rates (21.7 percent rate of pregnancy in the Latin American population, 21.4 percent rate of pregnancy in U.S. women less than 25 years of age, 5.4 percent total clinical failure rate) of the FC1 Female Condom but recommended approval with conditions, which included labeling changes aimed at limiting the safety and effectiveness claims and the development of physician labeling. The FC1 Panel based this decision on the fact that no other barrier method existed for women to protect themselves against transmission of STIs if their partner would not use a male condom.

    On January 8, 2008, FDA received a PMA (P080002) from the Female Health Company for the FC2 Female Condom (an updated version of the Reality Female Condom, now also referred to as the FC1 Female Condom), comprised of a nitrile sheath, nitrile outer ring, and polyurethane inner ring. Data provided in this PMA demonstrated that the FC2 Female Condom is an effective barrier to viral particles, is biocompatible, has acceptable mechanical properties, and has comparable rates of total clinical failure (2.18 percent) when compared to the FC1 Female Condom (2.92 percent). On December 11, 2008, CDRH convened the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel (referred to as the “FC2 Panel”) in 2008 to discuss the safety and effectiveness of the FC2 Female Condom. The FC2 Panel recommended approval of the device with conditions, which included labeling changes aimed at improving consumer understanding of possible failure modes of the FC2 Female Condom and the outcomes of the acute failure modes study. The FC2 Panel found that the acute failure modes study comparing the FC2 Female Condom to the FC1 Female Condom provided a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness for the FC2 Female Condom. Additionally, the FC2 Panel did not believe a contraceptive effectiveness study was needed to demonstrate reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness because of the similarities in design between the FC2 and FC1 Female Condoms and the results of the acute failure modes study, which demonstrated comparable rates of clinical failure between the two female condoms. However, the FC2 Panel noted that the recommendation to not require a contraceptive effectiveness study applied only to the FC2 Female Condom and not other female condoms. As outlined in the proposed special controls in section VI, FDA has determined that a contraceptive effectiveness study is necessary to mitigate the risks to health related to pregnancy for this device type when used for vaginal intercourse.

    A review of published literature evaluating the clinical use of the FC2 Female Condom indicates that clinical failure occurred in less than 5 percent of device uses (Refs. 4-7). Clinical failure is defined as the sum total of acute failure events for the internal condom. For the FC2 Female Condom, the acute failure events are slippage, breakage, misdirection, and invagination. This clinical failure rate may decrease with increased user experience with internal condoms (Ref. 5). The adverse events experienced by users of internal condom were infrequent and mild. The results of these published studies indicate that the FC2 Female Condom is effective and has a favorable safety profile. FDA identified no new risks or safety and effectiveness concerns from the published literature that it did not previously identify through its review of the PMAs or either of the prior Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel (“The Panel”) discussions of the female condom.

    FDA acknowledges that the available valid scientific evidence, including the review of the MAUDE database, previous PMA approvals and The Panel discussions, and the published literature, primarily discuss use of internal condoms for vaginal intercourse. FDA believes that with the exception of pregnancy, the risks associated with internal condoms for vaginal intercourse are the same as those for anal intercourse (Refs. 11-13). Accordingly, FDA has tentatively determined that special controls can be established, in combination with general controls, which will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of internal condoms used for anal intercourse.

    Based on its review of the FC1 and FC2 Female Condom PMAs; the discussions of the Classification Panel, FC1 Panel, and FC2 Panel on the safety and effectiveness of the internal condom; and peer-reviewed published literature, FDA has tentatively determined that available nonclinical and clinical performance data support that the risks associated with the internal condom are well understood and can be mitigated through special controls, including performance testing and labeling. FDA has also tentatively determined that the identified mitigation measures can be used to establish special controls, in addition to general controls, which are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for this device type. FDA believes that premarket notification and establishment of special controls will allow for assessment of the design and materials of single-use internal condoms through completion of a risk analysis, biocompatibility testing, mechanical performance testing, viral penetration testing, and clinical performance testing and sufficient labeling. FDA, on its own initiative, is proposing to reclassify this postamendments class III device type into class II.

    VI. Proposed Special Controls

    FDA believes that the following special controls, together with general controls, address the risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness to mitigate the risks to health described in section V for the aforementioned single-use internal condoms.

    The risks of pregnancy and STI are the most clinically significant risks of the single-use internal condom when used for vaginal and/or anal intercourse. Clinical testing is necessary to mitigate these risks to health. Clinical testing evaluates the rate of total clinical failure of the device and the rate of individual failure modes (slippage, breakage, misdirection, invagination, and other failure modes as appropriate) when the device is used as intended (i.e., during vaginal and/or anal intercourse). When the device is indicated for vaginal intercourse, clinical testing evaluates the cumulative pregnancy rate based on a contraceptive effectiveness study.

    To mitigate the risk of STI due to contact with infected semen or vaginal secretions or vaginal/anal mucosa, FDA believes that a viral penetration study is needed to demonstrate that the device is an effective barrier to STIs.

    In addition to clinical testing and viral penetration testing to mitigate the risks of pregnancy and STI, FDA believes that the device must demonstrate that it performs as intended under the anticipated conditions of use (i.e., vaginal and/or anal intercourse). Mechanical testing of the device must demonstrate that the device can withstand forces under anticipated use conditions by evaluation of the tensile, tear, and burst properties of the device. Compatibility testing with personal lubricants must determine whether the physical properties of the device are adversely affected by use of additional lubricants. Furthermore, shelf-life testing must demonstrate that the device maintains its performance characteristics and the packaging of the device maintains its integrity for the duration of the proposed shelf-life. The risk of an adverse tissue reaction due to the patient-contacting materials of the device is an additional risk of the single-use internal condom when used for vaginal and/or anal intercourse. In order to mitigate this risk, FDA believes the device must demonstrate biocompatibility.

    FDA also believes that comprehensive labeling describing risks and mitigation measures associated with the single-use internal condom must be listed. When the device is indicated for vaginal intercourse, the labeling must include a contraceptive effectiveness table comparing typical use (actual use of the method, including inconsistent and incorrect use) and perfect use (when used correctly 100 percent of the time) pregnancy rates of the device to other available methods of birth control. The labeling must also list the adverse events associated with the device, including potential transmission of infection, adverse tissue reaction, and ulceration or other physical trauma. Because the physical properties of the device may be adversely affected by the use of personal lubricants, the labeling must specify whether the device is compatible with additional types of personal lubricants (e.g., water-based, silicone-based). Finally, the labeling must specify an expiration date to ensure that the device performs as intended over the stated shelf-life.

    Table 1 shows how FDA believes that the risks to health identified in section IV can be mitigated by the proposed special controls. This reclassification order and the identified special controls, if finalized, would provide sufficient detail regarding FDA's requirements to reasonably assure safety and effectiveness of single-use internal condoms.

    Table 1—Risks to Health and Mitigation Measures for Single-Use Internal Condoms Identified risks to health Mitigation measures Pregnancy Contraceptive effectiveness study. Acute failure modes study.
  • Nonclinical performance testing.
  • Shelf-life.
  • Labeling.
  • Transmission of Infection Acute failure modes study.
  • Viral penetration study.
  • Nonclinical performance testing.
  • Shelf-life.
  • Labeling.
  • Adverse tissue reaction Biocompatibility.
  • Labeling.
  • Ulceration and other physical trauma Acute failure modes study.
  • Nonclinical performance testing.
  • Shelf-life.
  • Labeling.
  • VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed order refers to currently approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information under 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    IX. Proposed Effective Date

    FDA proposes that any final order based on this proposed order become effective 30 days after the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

    X. References

    The following references are on display in Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES), and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; most are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. P910064 Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED).

    2. P940033 Premarket Approval Notice (60 FR 30310, June 8, 1995).

    3. P080002 SSED is available on FDA's Web site at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/P080002B.pdf.

    4. Joanis, C., M. Beksinska, C. Hart, et al., “Three New Female Condoms: Which Do South-African Women Prefer?” Contraception, 83(3):248-254, 2011.

    5. Beksinska, M., J. Smit, C. Joanis, et al., “Practice Makes Perfect: Reduction in Female Condom Failures and User Problems With Short-Term Experience in a Randomized Trial.” Contraception, 86(2):127-131, 2012.

    6. Beksinska, M.E., G. Piaggio, J.A. Smit, et al., “Performance and Safety of the Second-Generation Female Condom (FC2) Versus the Woman's, the VA Worn-of-Women, and the Cupid Female Condoms: A Randomised Controlled Non-Inferiority Crossover Trial.” The Lancet Global Health, 1(3):e146-152, 2013.

    7. Beksinska, M., R. Greener, I. Kleinschmidt, et al., “A Randomized Noninferiority Crossover Controlled Trial of the Functional Performance and Safety of New Female Condoms: An Evaluation of the Velvet, Cupid2, and FC2.” Contraception, 92(3):261-267, 2015.

    8. The panel transcript and other meeting materials for the December 11, 2008, Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel are available on FDA's Web site at https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170405192707/https:/www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ObstetricsandGynecologyDevices/ucm433049.htm.

    9. The panel transcript and other meeting materials for the March 7, 1989, January 31, 1992, and December 10, 1992, Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel.

    10. “Guidance for Industry and for FDA Reviewers: Guidance on Section 216 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997,” issued on August 9, 2000. Available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm073709.pdf.

    11. Kelvin, E.A., J.E. Mantell, N. Candelario, et al., “Off-Label Use of the Female Condom for Anal Intercourse Among Men in New York City.” American Journal of Public Health, 101(12):2241-2244, 2011.

    12. Gross, M., S.P. Buchbinder, S. Holte, et al., “Use of Reality `Female Condoms' for Anal Sex by US Men Who Have Sex With Men. HIVNET Vaccine Preparedness Study Protocol Team.” American Journal of Public Health, 89(11):1739-1741, 1999.

    13. Renzi, C., S.R. Tabet, J.A. Stucky, et al., “Safety and Acceptability of the Reality Condom for Anal Sex Among Men Who Have Sex With Men.” AIDS, 17(5):727-731, 2003.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 884

    Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 884 be amended as follows:

    PART 884—OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 884 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

    2. Amend § 884.5330 in Subpart F by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 884.5330 Multiple-use female condom.

    (a) Identification. A multiple-use female condom is a sheath-like device that lines the vaginal wall and is inserted into the vagina prior to the initiation of coitus. At the conclusion of coitus, the device can be reused. It is indicated for contraception and prophylactic (preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections) purposes.

    3. Add § 884.5340 in Subpart F to read as follows:
    § 884.5340 Single-use internal condom.

    (a) Identification. A single-use internal condom is a sheath-like device that lines the vaginal or anal wall and is inserted into the vagina or anus prior to the initiation of coitus. At the conclusion of coitus, it is removed and discarded. It is indicated for contraception and/or prophylactic (prevention of sexually transmitted infections) purposes.

    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

    (1) Clinical performance testing must evaluate the following:

    (i) Rate of clinical failure of the device and rate of individual failure modes of the device based on an acute failure modes study evaluating the intended use (vaginal and/or anal intercourse); and

    (ii) Cumulative pregnancy rate when using the device based on a contraceptive effectiveness study (when the device is indicated for vaginal intercourse).

    (2) Viral penetration testing must demonstrate the device is an effective barrier to sexually transmitted infections.

    (3) Nonclinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be evaluated:

    (i) Mechanical testing must demonstrate the device can withstand forces under anticipated use conditions, include evaluation of tensile, tear, and burst properties of the device.

    (ii) Compatibility testing with personal lubricants must determine whether the physical properties of the device are adversely affected by use of additional lubricants.

    (4) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    (5) Shelf-life testing must demonstrate that the device maintains its performance characteristics and the packaging of the device must maintain integrity for the duration of the shelf-life.

    (6) Labeling of the device must include:

    (i) Contraceptive effectiveness table comparing typical use and perfect use pregnancy rates with the device to other available methods of birth control;

    (ii) Statement regarding the adverse events associated with the device, including potential transmission of infection, adverse tissue reaction, and ulceration or other physical trauma;

    (iii) Expiration date; and

    (iv) Statement regarding compatibility with additional types of personal lubricants.

    Dated: November 28, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26011 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 16 [CPCLO Order No. 011-2017] Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation AGENCY:

    Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    In the Notice section of today's Federal Register, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a component of the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ), has published a notice of a new Privacy Act system of records, “FBI Online Collaboration Systems,” JUSTICE/FBI-004. In this notice of proposed rulemaking, the FBI proposes to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act in order to prevent interference with the national security and criminal law enforcement functions and responsibilities of the FBI and its partners. For the reasons provided below, the Department proposes to amend its Privacy Act regulations by establishing an exemption for records in this system from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Public comment is invited.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] To ensure proper handling, please reference the CPCLO Order No. in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 202-307-0693. To ensure proper handling, please reference the CPCLO Order No. on the cover page of the fax.

    Mail: United States Department of Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530. All comments sent via regular or express mail will be considered timely if postmarked on the day the comment period closes. To ensure proper handling, please reference the CPCLO Order No. in your correspondence.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. When submitting comments electronically, you must include the CPCLO Order No. in the subject box. Please note that the Department is requesting that electronic comments be submitted before midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time on the day the comment period closes because http://www.regulations.gov terminates the public's ability to submit comments at that time. Commenters in time zones other than Eastern Time may want to consider this so that their electronic comments are received.

    Posting of Public Comments: Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov and in the Department's public docket. Such information includes personally identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all personal identifying information that you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the public docket.

    Personally identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, may be posted online and placed in the Department's public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph, below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine M. Bond, Assistant General Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties Unit, Office of the General Counsel, FBI, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20535-0001, telephone 202-324-3000.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FBI Online Collaboration Systems

    In the Notice section of today's Federal Register, the FBI has established a new Privacy Act system of records, “FBI Online Collaboration Systems,” JUSTICE/FBI-004. The FBI's Online Collaboration Systems will promote communication and information sharing for federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, and international criminal justice agencies, emergency management personnel and first responders, and private sector partners as well as military and other government personnel involved in law enforcement and national security matters, by allowing the FBI and its partners to communicate with experts, create and join communities of common interest, create blogs to present ideas and receive feedback, share files with colleagues, exchange ideas through online forums, enhance situational awareness, and facilitate incident management. By providing online communication platforms such as JusticeConnect, collaboration tools such as Special Interest Groups and Virtual Command Centers, and providing and maintaining a secure communications network, the FBI will increase collaboration and cooperation between and among its partners. In this rulemaking, the FBI proposes to exempt this Privacy Act system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act in order to prevent interference with the responsibilities of the FBI and its partners to detect, deter, and prosecute crimes and to protect the national security.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule relates to individuals rather than small business entities. Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, therefore, the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E-Congressional Review Act)

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires the FBI to comply with small entity requests for information and advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within FBI jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph, above. Persons can obtain further information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business Administration's Web page at http://www.sba.gov/advo/archive/sum_sbrefa.html.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires that the FBI consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. There are no current or new information collection requirements associated with this proposed rule. The records that are contributed to this system are created by the FBI or other law enforcement and governmental entities. Sharing of this information electronically will not increase the paperwork burden on the public.

    Analysis of Regulatory Impacts

    This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and therefore further regulatory evaluation is not necessary. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies only to information about individuals.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 103-3, 109 Stat. 48, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. UMRA requires a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives for proposed and final rules that contain Federal mandates. A “Federal mandate” is a new or additional enforceable duty, imposed on any State, local, or tribal government, or the private sector. If any Federal mandate causes those entities to spend, in aggregate, $100 million or more in any one year, the UMRA analysis is required. This proposed rule would not impose Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal government or the private sector.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16

    Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of information, Privacy.

    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008, 28 CFR part 16 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 16—PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717.

    Subpart E—Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act 2. Amend § 16.96 by adding paragraphs (x) and (y) to read as follows:
    § 16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of Investigation Systems-limited access.

    (x) The Federal Bureau of Investigation Online Collaboration Systems (JUSTICE/FBI-004) system of records is exempted from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), (5), and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act:

    (1) FBI Online Collaboration Systems, (JUSTICE/FBI-004).

    (2) These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k). Where the FBI determines compliance with an exempted provision would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect interests of the United States or other system stakeholders, the FBI in its sole discretion may waive an exemption in whole or in part; exercise of this discretionary waiver prerogative in a particular matter shall not create any entitlement to or expectation of waiver in that matter or any other matter. As a condition of discretionary waiver, the FBI in its sole discretion may impose any restrictions deemed advisable by the FBI (including, but not limited to, restrictions on the location, manner, or scope of notice, access or amendment).

    (y) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

    (1) From subsection (c)(3), the requirement that an accounting be made available to the named subject of a record, because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d). Also, because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him/her would specifically reveal any law enforcement or national security investigative interest in the individual by the FBI or agencies that are recipients of the disclosures. Revealing this information could compromise ongoing, authorized law enforcement and intelligence efforts, particularly efforts to identify and defuse any potential acts of terrorism or other potential violations of criminal law. Revealing this information could also permit the record subject to obtain valuable insight concerning the information obtained during any investigation and to take measures to circumvent the investigation (e.g., destroy evidence or flee the area to avoid investigation).

    (2) From subsection (c)(4) notification requirements because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) as well as the accounting disclosures provision of subsection (c)(3). The FBI takes seriously its obligation to maintain accurate records despite its assertion of this exemption, and to the extent it, in its sole discretion, agrees to permit amendment or correction of FBI records, it will share that information in appropriate cases.

    (3) From subsection (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), (e)(8), (f) and (g) because these provisions concern individual access to and amendment of law enforcement and intelligence records and compliance could alert the subject of an authorized law enforcement or intelligence activity about that particular activity and the investigative interest of the FBI and/or other law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Providing access could compromise sensitive law enforcement information, disclose information that could constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive investigative or intelligence technique; provide information that would allow a subject to avoid detection or apprehension; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential sources, and witnesses. The FBI takes seriously its obligation to maintain accurate records despite its assertion of this exemption, and to the extent it, in its sole discretion, agrees to permit amendment or correction of FBI records, it will share that information in appropriate cases with subjects of the information.

    (4) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to know in advance what information is relevant and necessary for law enforcement and intelligence purposes. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. For example, what appears relevant and necessary when collected ultimately may be deemed unnecessary. It is only after information is assessed that its relevancy and necessity in a specific investigative activity can be established.

    (5) From subsections (e)(2) and (3) because application of these provisions requiring collection directly from the subject individuals and informing individuals regarding information to be collected about them, could present a serious impediment to efforts to solve crimes and improve national security. Application of these provisions would put the subject of an investigation on notice of that fact and allow the subject an opportunity to engage in conduct intended to impede that activity or avoid apprehension.

    (6) From subsection (e)(4)(I), to the extent that this subsection is interpreted to require more detail regarding the record sources in this system than has already been published in the Federal Register through the SORN documentation. Should the subsection be so interpreted, exemption from this provision is necessary to protect the sources of law enforcement and intelligence information and to protect the privacy and safety of witnesses and informants and others who provide information to the FBI.

    (7) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for authorized law enforcement and intelligence purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With time, additional facts, or analysis, information may acquire new significance. The restrictions imposed by subsection (e)(5) would limit the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in reporting on investigations and impede the development of criminal intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement. Although the FBI has claimed this exemption, it continuously works with its federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners to maintain the accuracy of records to the greatest extent practicable. The FBI does so with established policies and practices. The criminal justice and national security communities have a strong operational interest in using up-to-date and accurate records and will foster relationships with partners to further this interest.

    Dated: November 28, 2017. Peter A. Winn, Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, United States Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25993 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0585; FRL-9971-07-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Logan Nonattainment Area Fine Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan for Attainment of 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the emissions inventory, modeled attainment demonstration, determination for Major Stationary Source Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), determination for On-Road Mobile Sources Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), determination for Cache County Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program as additional reasonable measures, determination for Off-Road Mobile Sources RACM, and the 2015 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEB) portions of the attainment plan submitted by Utah on December 16, 2014, to address Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area. These actions are being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0585 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to the public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    II. Background

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, lowering the primary and secondary standards from the 1997 standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated three nonattainment areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3. These are the Salt Lake City, Utah (UT); Provo, UT; and Logan, UT-Idaho (ID) nonattainment areas.

    The Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area, also called the Cache Valley, is composed of portions of Cache County, UT and Franklin County, ID. The Cache Valley is an isolated, bowl-shaped valley measuring approximately 60 kilometers north to south and 20 kilometers east to west and almost entirely surrounded by mountain ranges. The Wellsville Mountains lie to the west, and on the east lie the Bear River Mountains; both are northern branches of the Wasatch Range. The State considers topography as a barrier to air movement during the conditions which lead to elevated concentrations of fine particulates and as the primary factor in determining where the population is located. The low-lying valleys which trap air during winter-time temperature inversions are also the regions within which people live. Additional information pertaining to the unique issues associated with the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area and studies completed on inversions can be found in the 9-factor analysis for Utah and Idaho in the November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688) action titled “Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”

    The EPA originally issued a rule in 2007 1 regarding implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS for the nonattainment area requirements specified in CAA title I, part D, subpart 1. Under subpart 1, Utah was required to submit an attainment plan for each area no later than three years from the date of nonattainment designation. These plans needed to provide for the attainment of the PM2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the date the areas were designated nonattainment.

    1 72 FR 20586; April 25, 2007.

    Following the November 13, 2009 designation of nonattainment for PM2.5, Utah developed a draft PM2.5 attainment plan intended to meet the requirements of subpart 1. The EPA submitted written comments dated November 1, 2012, to the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) on the draft PM2.5 SIP, technical support document (TSD), area source rules, and point source rules found in Section IX, Part H.2 Utah submitted a revised PM2.5 attainment plan for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area on December 14, 2012.

    2 An “area source” is “any small residential, governmental, institutional, commercial, or industrial fuel combustion operation; onsite solid waste disposal facility; motor vehicle], aircraft vessel or other transportation facilit[y] or other miscellaneous source identified” through specified inventory techniques. 40 CFR 51.100(l). A “point source” is any stationary source emitting above certain thresholds. 40 CFR 51.100(k).

    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour standards, as well as the other PM2.5 NAAQS, based on both CAA title I, part D, subpart 1 and subpart 4. Under subpart 4, all nonattainment areas are initially classified as Moderate, and Moderate area attainment plans must address the requirements of subpart 4 as well as subpart 1. Additionally, subpart 4 sets a different SIP submittal due date and attainment year. For a Moderate area, the attainment SIP is due 18 months after designation and the attainment year is as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after designation.

    On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized the Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (“the Classification and Deadlines Rule”). This rule classified as Moderate the areas that were designated in 2009 as nonattainment, and set the attainment SIP submittal due date for those areas at December 31, 2014. Additionally, this rule established the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015.

    After the court's 2013 decision, Utah amended its attainment plan to address the requirements of subpart 4. On December 2, 2013, and October 30, 2014, the EPA provided comments on Utah's revised draft PM2.5 SIPs, including the TSD and emissions limits in Section IX, Part H. Subsequently, on December 16, 2014, UDAQ withdrew all prior Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 Moderate SIP submissions and submitted a subpart 1 and subpart 4 PM2.5 Moderate SIP, which is one of the submissions we are proposing to act on today.3

    3 The Salt Lake City, UT and Provo, UT Moderate PM2.5 SIPs attainment plans, including requirements regarding RACM under CAA subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act, will be acted on separately.

    On August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (“PM2.5 Implementation Rule”), 81 FR 58010, which partially addressed the January 4, 2013 court ruling. The final PM2.5 Implementation Rule details how air agencies can meet the statutory SIP requirements under subparts 1 and 4 that apply to areas designated nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS, such as: General requirements for attainment plan due dates and attainment demonstrations; provisions for demonstrating reasonable further progress (RFP); quantitative milestones; contingency measures; Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting programs; and RACM (including RACT). The statutory attainment planning requirements of subparts 1 and 4 were established to ensure that the following goals of the CAA are met: (i) That states implement measures that provide for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable; and, (ii) that states adopt emissions reduction strategies that will be the most effective at reducing PM2.5 levels in nonattainment areas.

    On September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42447), the EPA granted two, one-year extensions of the Moderate attainment date for the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area until December 31, 2017.

    III. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Moderate Nonattainment Area Plans A. PM2.5 Moderate Area Plan Requirements

    Upon designation as a Moderate nonattainment area under subpart 1 and subpart 4, the CAA requires the State to submit the following Moderate area SIP elements:

    1. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));

    2. Provisions to assure that RACM, including RACT, for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall be implemented no later than four years after the area is designated (CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C));

    3. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the Moderate area attainment date;

    4. Plan provisions that require RFP (CAA section 172(c)(2));

    5. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));

    6. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the State demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));

    7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and

    8. A revision to the NNSR program to set the applicable “major stationary source” thresholds to 100 tons per year (tpy) (CAA section 302(j)).

    Moderate area PM2.5 plans must also satisfy the general requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA, including the requirement to provide necessary assurances that the implementing agencies have adequate personnel, funding and authority under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) and the requirements concerning enforcement provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).

    The EPA interprets the CAA's requirements for particulate matter plans under part D, title I of the Act in the following documents: (1) “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (“General Preamble”); (2) “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990; Supplemental,” 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992) (“Supplement”); (3) “State Implementation Plans for Serious PM10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990,” 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994) (“Addendum”); and (4) “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements,” August 24, 2016 (81 FR 58010) (“PM2.5 Implementation Rule”). We discuss these interpretations of the Act as appropriate in our evaluation of the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 Plan.

    B. Implementation of Reasonably Available Control Measures

    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from subpart 1) requires that attainment plans, in general, provide for the implementation of all RACM (including RACT) as expeditiously as practicable and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards. CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) (from subpart 4) requires Moderate area attainment plans to contain provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later than four years after designation.

    The EPA stated its interpretation of the RACT and RACM requirements of subparts 1 and 4 in the 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 6, 1992). For RACT, the EPA followed its “historic definition of RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 57 FR 13541. Like RACT, the EPA has historically considered RACM to consist of control measures that are reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility. See PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 81 FR 58010.

    IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 Moderate Plan

    The EPA is proposing to act on the following portions of the Logan Moderate PM2.5 SIP: The emissions inventory, modeled attainment demonstration, determination for Major Stationary Source RACT, determination for On-Road Mobile Sources RACM, determination for Cache County I/M Program as additional reasonable measures, determination for Off-Road Mobile Sources RACM, and 2015 MVEB.

    A. Emissions Inventory 1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a “comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] area. . . .” By requiring an accounting of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants in the area, this section provides for the base year inventory to include all emissions that contribute to the formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 2006 PM2.5 standards, this includes direct PM2.5 as well as the precursor emissions to the formation of secondary PM2.5: Nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3). Direct PM2.5 includes condensable and filterable particulate matter. Additionally, a state must include in its SIP submission documentation explaining how the emissions data were calculated. In estimating mobile source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed.

    In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the State must also submit future inventories for the projected attainment year and any other year of significance for meeting applicable CAA requirements. By attainment projected inventories, we mean the projected emissions inventories for future years that account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of economic growth and adopted emissions control requirements. The SIP should include documentation to explain how the emissions projections were calculated.

    2. Emissions Inventories in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 Moderate Plan

    The base year inventory should represent typical conditions at a recent point in time, and becomes the basis for comparisons with all projections into the future. The foundation that UDAQ used for each of these specific inventories is the 2008 triennial inventory, which was the most recent comprehensive inventory submitted to the EPA under subpart A of 40 CFR part 51. Utah used the 2008 inventory to back-cast and adjust for certain episodic conditions, and forecast a representation of more typical conditions to develop the projected inventories.

    The Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area emissions inventory includes emissions estimates from point sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources. The methodologies used to derive the 2010 base year inventory for PM2.5 are as follows:

    • The point source emissions inventory is based on the 2008 triennial National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data of actual emissions reported by all permitted facilities. UDAQ used data from the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) to project the 2008 actual point source emissions to 2010.

    • Activity data was used to calculate emissions for area source categories. This data includes population, employment, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), fuel usage, agriculture, and other estimates covering a wide range of activities, in conjunction with the 2008 triennial NEI.

    • The inventory for the on-road mobile source category includes emissions for mobile sources such as trucks, cars, buses, and motorcycles. It was prepared by UDAQ using the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010a), the most current version of the model available at the time the inventory was prepared, in conjunction with information generated by travel demand models such as vehicle speeds and miles traveled.

    • The non-road mobile source category includes miscellaneous non-road engines, aircraft, and locomotives. Miscellaneous non-road emissions were computed by using the EPA NONROAD Model, version 2008.1.0. Locomotive emissions were estimated by applying the EPA emission factors to the total amount of fuel used by locomotives. Aircraft emissions were estimated by applying aircraft specific activity data and the Emissions Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS), version 5.1.2.

    • Paved road emissions (coarse particulate matter (PM10) and PM2.5 fugitive dust) were estimated by UDAQ based on the EPA's January 2011 version of AP-42, Section 13.2.1.

    Table 1 below provides a summary of winter daily average inventories of source categories for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for the 2010 base year and 2015 projected year. The base year inventory provides the basis for the control measure analysis in the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP and the projected year inventory provides the model projection for emission reductions found in the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP.

    Table 1—Logan, UT-ID Typical Winter Inversion Weekday in Tons per Day (tpd) of Source Categories for Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors for the 2010 Baseline Year and 2015 Projected Year Source category 2010 Direct
  • PM2.5
  • NOX SO2 VOC NH3 2015 Direct
  • PM2.5
  • NOX SO2 VOC NH3
    Area Sources 0.54 1.63 0.26 4.16 4.31 0.40 1.59 0.27 3.75 4.08 Mobile Sources 0.67 6.48 0.04 4.99 0.12 0.32 4.49 0.03 3.36 0.10 Non-Road Mobile Sources 0.13 1.15 0.02 2.28 0.00 0.10 0.81 0.01 1.77 0.00 Point Sources 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total * 1.35 9.28 0.32 12.06 4.43 0.82 6.89 0.31 8.88 4.19 * Totals might have slight deviations from the sum of the source categories due to rounding.

    The composition of the Area Source Category in the table above includes: Agriculture—livestock waste; bulk gasoline terminals; commercial cooking; dust—construction dust; fuel combination—commercial/institutional—coal, natural gas, oil, and other; fuel combination—residential—oil, other, and wood; gas stations, industrial processes—not elsewhere classified (NEC); miscellaneous non-industrial NEC; mobile—non-road equipment—diesel; solvent—consumer and commercial solvent use, degreasing, dry cleaning, graphic arts, industrial surface coating and solvent use, non-industrial surface coating; and waste disposal.

    3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: Base Year and Projected Emissions Inventories

    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule sets forth several requirements for the base year inventory and projected year inventory for Moderate area attainment plans. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2), respectively. The EPA has also issued guidance for the preparation of emissions inventories for implementation of the PM2.5 and ozone standards, along with regional haze requirements.4 We propose to determine that the base year and projected year inventories meet the requirements in the CAA and PM2.5 Implementation Rule and was prepared consistently with the recommendations in the guidance.

    4 “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,” Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-454/R-05-001 (August 2005).

    Specifically, the base year inventory satisfies each requirement found in 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1). First, the base year of 2010 was not one of the three years (2006-2008) used for designation of the area as nonattainment. See 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(i). However, the state has justified 2010 as a technically appropriate inventory year, and the use of a later year is consistent with the statutory requirement in section 172(c)(3) to use a “current” inventory. Second, the inventory represents actual, average season-day emissions. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii). Third, the inventory provides emissions of all precursors of PM2.5. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(iv). Fourth, emissions of point sources are reported according to thresholds found in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(v).

    The projected year inventory satisfies each requirement in 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2). First, the 2015 projected year inventory was the most expeditious year that showed modeled PM2.5 concentrations below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2)(i). Second, the projected emission values were derived from the same sources included in the base year inventory and included projected emissions based on growth and contraction pertaining to controls and other potential causes. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2)(ii). Third, the temporal period of projected emissions was the same as the base year inventory, average season-day. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2)(iii). Fourth, the inventory provides emissions of all precursors of PM2.5. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2)(iv). Fifth, all sources (point, stationary nonpoint, and mobile sources) were included in the projected inventory at the same level of detail found in the base year inventory. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2)(v) and (a)(2)(vi).

    The base year inventory in the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP is based on the most current and accurate information available to the State at the time the SIP was being developed. Additionally, the base year and projected inventories met all minimum requirements found in 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and (2), and the inventories addressed all source categories in the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area and were developed consistent with the EPA's inventory guidance.5 For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2010 base year emissions inventory and the 2015 projected emissions inventory in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). We are also proposing to find that the base year and projected inventories in the SIP provide an adequate basis for development of the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP.

    5 Utah Moderate PM2.5 SIP TSD, Chapter 1—Inventory General, Section b—Inventory Preparation Plan. The scope for UDAQ's PM2.5 Emission Inventory Preparation Plan includes: EPA's “Emission Inventory Improvement Program,” “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations” dated August 2005, “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze” dated April 2007, and “Guidance for Creating Annual On-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas for Use in SIPs and Conformity” dated August 2005. These documents helped to facilitate the collection of point, area, mobile, biogenic, and geogenic emission inventory data.

    B. Modeled Attainment Demonstration 1. Requirements for the Modeled Attainment Demonstration

    Air quality modeling is used to establish emissions attainment targets, the combination of emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors that the area can accommodate and still attain the standard, and to assess whether the proposed control strategy will result in attainment of the standard. Air quality modeling is performed for a base year and compared to air quality monitoring data collected during that year in order to determine model performance. Once the model performance is determined to be acceptable, future year changes to the emissions inventory are simulated with the model to determine the relationship between emissions reductions and changes in ambient air quality. To project future design values (FDVs), the model response to emission reductions, in the form of Relative Response Factors (RRFs), is applied to monitored design values from the base year.

    At the time the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP was developed, the EPA's recommendations for model input preparation, model performance evaluation, use of the model output for the attainment demonstration and modeling documentation were described in Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007 (“Modeling Guidance Update”).6

    6 The EPA Modeling Guidance and Modeling Guidance Update are available on EPA's SCRAM Web site, Web page: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_sip.htm.

    The EPA recommends that states prepare a modeling protocol as part of their modeled attainment demonstration, and the Modeling Guidance describes the topics to be addressed in the modeling protocol. A modeling protocol should detail and formalize the procedures for conducting all phases of the modeling analysis, such as describing the background and objectives, creating a schedule and organizational structure, developing the input data, conducting model performance evaluations, interpreting modeling results, describing procedures for using the model to demonstrate whether proposed strategies are sufficient to attain the applicable standard, and producing documentation to be submitted for the EPA Regional Office review and approval prior to actual modeling.

    In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration, which focuses on locations with an air quality monitor, EPA's Guidance describes an Unmonitored Area Analysis (UAA). This analysis is intended to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions in PM2.5 at other locations that have no monitor but that might have base year and future baseline (projection year) ambient PM2.5 levels exceeding the standard.

    Under the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the attainment demonstration must show that the projected attainment date is as expeditious as practicable. 40 CFR 51.1392(a)(1). The demonstration must meet the general modeling requirements in Appendix W to part 51 and must include the emission inventory data, modeling results, and emission reduction analyses that were used in the demonstration. 40 CFR 51.1392(a)(2). The base year for the emissions inventory must be one of the three years used for designation or another technically appropriate year that the state has justified. 40 CFR 51.1392(a)(3). Finally, the attainment demonstration must be consistent with the control strategy in the attainment plan. 40 CFR 51.1392(a)(4).

    2. Modeled Attainment Demonstration in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 Moderate Plan

    UDAQ conducted a technical analysis to support the development of the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP. Their analyses included preparation of emissions inventories, meteorological data, and the application and evaluation of a regional photochemical model. UDAQ's air quality analyses were conducted using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Model version 4.7.1, with emissions inputs generated using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) processing system, and meteorological inputs developed using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model.

    The modeling protocol for the Moderate PM2.5 SIP is contained in the docket for this action and includes descriptions of the photochemical modeling. Additional description of the photochemical modeling is covered in the Weight of Evidence Analysis (WOEA).7 The protocol was reviewed by the EPA and covers all of the topics recommended in the Modeling Guidance Update.

    7 Chapter 4—Air Quality Modeling of the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP TSD.

    The air quality modeling and results are summarized in Chapter 5—Attainment Demonstration of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP and in Chapter 4—Air Quality Modeling of the TSD. Additionally, the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP included a UAA in Chapter 4 of the TSD within the WOEA (section 1.5).

    3. Evaluation of the Air Quality Modeling in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP

    As mentioned above, the attainment demonstration must show that the Moderate nonattainment area will attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation. The Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area attainment date was December 31, 2015. As the Moderate PM2.5 attainment plan for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area was due December 31, 2014 (79 FR 31566; June 2, 2014), one year before the six-year mark, the EPA proposes to determine that the projected attainment date of December 31, 2015, was as expeditious as practicable. We also note that one of the control measure implemented in the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area, the I/M program, was not fully implemented until 2015. This supports the conclusion that the attainment date, December 31, 2015, was as expeditiously as practicable.

    The EPA proposes to approve the attainment demonstration as meeting general modeling requirements in Appendix W. The joint Utah and Idaho modeling included in Chapter 4 of the TSD and Chapter 5 of the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP followed applicable EPA modeling guidance in predicting that state and federal control measures to address point sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources would bring PM2.5 concentrations below 35 µg/m3 by December 31, 2015, in the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. The air quality model performance appears generally acceptable and usually within stated performance goals; speciation and composition of the modeled PM2.5 matches the observed speciation, with good agreement in the magnitude of PM2.5 and good replication of the episodic buildup and clear out of PM2.5; however, the meteorological model does not always accurately simulate the intensity and persistence of cold air pool inversion conditions, and as a result, the model sometimes clears out the simulated PM2.5 too early at the end of an episode.

    We note that the PM2.5 Implementation Rule provides that a state's modeled attainment demonstration must establish that an area will attain the NAAQS by the projected attainment date. However, for purposes of modeling, a state may elect to demonstrate that the area will meet the numerical level of the NAAQS for the attainment year (81 FR 58010, at page 58054). The EPA authorizes this approach because of the potential availability of extensions of the Moderate area attainment date under relevant provisions section 188(d) of the CAA. In other words, if ambient data show attainment-level concentrations in the applicable statutory attainment year, the state may be eligible for up to two one-year extensions of the attainment date. See 40 CFR 51.1005. Using this provision, a state may be able to attain the NAAQS by the extended attainment date, even if the measured design value (a three-year average) for an area does not meet the NAAQS by the end of the 6th calendar year after designation. For this reason, the PM2.5 Implementation Rule indicates that it is acceptable for a state to model air quality levels for the final statutory attainment year in which the area is required to attain the standard, in this case, 2015. In the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area, both measured and modeled PM2.5 concentrations in 2015 were consistent with meeting the numerical level of the NAAQS in both Utah and Idaho, thus confirming the attainment demonstration.8

    8 The Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area monitor located in Logan, UT, recorded a valid 2015 98th percentile of 29.0 µg/m3. See the document titled “May 8, 2017 Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 Memo” in the docket to this action.

    Additionally, UDAQ included a UAA in the WOEA found in Chapter 4 of the TSD. The UAA showed that five grid-cells north of the Franklin, ID monitor had calculated future design values (FDVs) over 35.5 µg/m3. UDAQ was not sure why the predicted peak PM2.5 concentrations were high because there were no large point sources in the county, or any other emissions sources that could produce the level of emissions in the specific grid-cells to cause this concentration. The WOEA explains that the uncertainty in UDAQ's UAA method may be responsible for the high values north/northwest of the Franklin, ID monitor. EPA modeling guidance 9 suggests using the Model Attainment Test Software (MATS) post-processor to perform a UAA. However, the MATS version 2.5.1 that was available when the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP was developed did not have the ability to perform a UAA for daily average PM2.5. As a result, UDAQ attempted to implement a UAA methodology for the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area UAA that was comparable to what was recommended by the EPA guidance, but the gradient adjustment and speciation techniques were necessarily simpler.

    9 April 2007; EPA-454/B-07-002; Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze.

    The EPA worked with UDAQ to develop the methodology for the UAA in the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area and agrees with UDAQ's conclusion that there were no large point sources within the high concentration grid-cells and the potentially high values north/northwest of the Franklin, ID monitor are possibly due to the uncertainty inherent in UDAQ's UAA method. Additionally, the EPA reviewed available monitoring data for 2015 at the Logan and Franklin monitors for which the 98th percentiles are 29.0 µg/m3 and 18.8 µg/m3, respectively. The monitoring data indicates that the high values in the UAA grid cells north/northwest of the Franklin monitor are likely an anomaly and the EPA will continue to work with UDAQ to refine their UAA method for future use.

    The EPA is therefore proposing to approve the attainment demonstration portion of the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP.

    C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology and Additional Reasonable Measures 1. Requirements for the RACM/RACT and Additional Measures

    As mentioned above, section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from subpart 1) requires that attainment plans, in general, provide for the implementation of all RACM (including RACT) as expeditiously as practicable. Section 189(a)(1)(C) (from subpart 4) requires Moderate area plans to include provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later than four years after designation. The Logan, UT-ID area was designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688). However, the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area was not classified as Moderate under subpart 4 until the EPA published the Classification and Deadlines Rule on June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566). Because the EPA designated the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area effective December 14, 2009, the area was required to implement RACM/RACT no later than December 14, 2013.

    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule defines RACM (including RACT) as any technologically and economically feasible measure that can be implemented in whole or in part within four years after the effective date of designation of a PM2.5 nonattainment area and that achieves permanent and enforceable reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursor emissions from sources in the area.

    Under the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the state must first identify all sources of emissions of direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors (NOX, SO2, VOC, and NH3) in the nonattainment area, in accordance with the emission inventory requirements described above. 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(1). The state must then identify all potential control measures to reduce emissions from those source categories, except for source categories or major stationary sources for which the state submits an acceptable precursor demonstration. 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(2). The state next determines whether the identified potential control measures are technologically feasible and whether any of the identified technologically feasible control measures are economically feasible. 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3). The state must provide a detailed written justification for any potential control measure that has been excluded as technologically or economically infeasible. 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(iii). The state may also eliminate potential control measures that would take longer than six years to implement. 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(i).

    Section 172(c)(6) of the Act requires states to implement “other measures” necessary to provide for timely attainment in an area. The PM2.5 Implementation Rule interprets this provision to require “additional reasonable measures,” which are those measures and technologies that can be applied at sources in the nonattainment area that are otherwise technologically and economically feasible but can only be implemented in whole or in part later than four years after designation.10

    10 81 FR 58010, 58043; August 24, 2016.

    2. RACM/RACT in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 Moderate Plan a. Major Stationary Sources

    In developing the emissions inventories underlying the SIP, UDAQ used the criteria of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A for air emissions reporting requirements to establish a 100 tons per year (tpy) threshold for identifying a sub-group of major stationary sources that would be evaluated individually for the establishment of emissions limits. Under 40 CFR 51.1000, the definition for major stationary source means “Any stationary source of air pollutant(s) that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor in any Moderate nonattainment area for the PM2.5 NAAQS, or 70 tpy or more of direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor in any Serious nonattainment area for the PM2.5 NAAQS.” 11 UDAQ used the Moderate threshold for emissions of direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors for all major stationary sources in the modeling domain. Additionally, UDAQ applied the 100 tpy threshold to the sources' potential to emit as well as their actual emissions. UDAQ determined that according to Moderate area threshold, Pepperidge Farm Inc., was the only source included on this list that is located in the Logan-UT-ID nonattainment area. Table 2 provides actual emission totals in tpy for the Pepperidge Farm Inc., plant for 2008.

    11 81 FR 58010, 58152; August 24, 2016.

    Table 2—Pepperidge Farm Incorporated 2008 Criteria Pollutant Inventory Process PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3 2008 Plantwide Emission Totals (tpy) Process & Fuel Emissions 0.48 0.03 5.20 0.29 0.03 Evaporative Emissions 0.32 Engines 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.00 Bakery 149.58 Totals 0.50 0.04 5.33 150.20 0.03

    UDAQ determined that data from the REMI would be used to project the 2008 actual major stationary source emissions to 2010. On March 23, 2012, Pepperidge Farm Inc., applied to be designated as a synthetic minor source and on May 21, 2012, UDAQ concurred and issued a construction permit that restricted emissions below the major stationary source threshold. Specifically, VOC emissions were limited to 93.81 tpy per rolling 12-month period. Since Pepperidge Farm Inc. was designated as a synthetic minor source in 2012, the source was not included in the 2015 projection inventory as a major stationary source, but in the area source inventory. Table 3 below shows emissions in tons per day for the 2010 baseline and projected 2015 inventories.

    Table 3—Pepperidge Farm Incorporated Baseline 2010 and Projected 2015 Emissions Inventories of Typical Winter Inversion Day (tpd) as a Major Stationary Source 2010 PM2.5 NOX VOC SO2 2015 PM2.5 NOX VOC SO2 Pepperidge Farms Inc. 0.00 0.02 0.63 0.00

    For the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP, UDAQ concluded that there were no major stationary sources with actual emissions or potential to emit 100 tpy of PM2.5 or any PM2.5 plan precursors. As stated above, this conclusion is due to Pepperidge Farm Inc., reducing their emissions to be designated as a synthetic minor source.

    b. On-Road Mobile Sources

    Through the course of the development of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP, UDAQ identified a motor vehicle I/M program as RACM to achieve reductions of PM2.5 precursor emissions of NOX and VOC. Subsequently, the EPA approved the revisions involving amendments to Utah's SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A, General Requirements and Applicability; the addition of Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part F, Cache County in Utah's SIP; and revisions to Utah's Administrative Rules on September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54237).

    The EPA noted in the September 9, 2015, final rule that under subparts 1 and 4 of the CAA, Cache County's I/M program is not a CAA mandatory or required I/M program; and is therefore, not held to the same level of applicability requirements as found in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, I/M program requirements. Within Utah's SIP, Part F of Section X, in conjunction with Part A of Section X, were designed by the County and the State to meet the minimum applicable I/M provisions and requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51, subpart S. It is also noted in Part F of Utah's SIP that although only a portion of Cache County was designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, the mandatory I/M program will be implemented county-wide. The I/M program began operation on January 1, 2014, where motor vehicles are subject to a mandatory biennial emissions inspection. Emissions inspections were required in odd-numbered years for vehicles with an odd-numbered model year and even-numbered years for vehicles with an even-numbered model year.

    The EPA is not revisiting the September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54237) approval of Cache County's I/M program with this action but is only acting on UDAQ's RACM analysis pertaining to this program. Within Chapter 5 of the TSD, UDAQ provides their review of several control measures and their final RACM conclusions for mobile sources in the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area.

    The potential control measures identified and evaluated by UDAQ include: (1) A mandatory I/M program in Logan where such a program did not previously exist; (2) reducing the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of gasoline to control VOC emissions; and (3) implementing a bundle of voluntary control measures (e.g., trip reduction, curtailing of operations/activities and driving on “yellow” and “red” air quality days, diesel retrofits and replacement of gasoline vehicles with alternate-fuel vehicles such as those running on compressed natural gas (CNG) or electricity, and gasoline/electric hybrids). UDAQ modeled these potential control measures but found that the only measure that provided any significant emission benefit was to include a mandatory I/M program for the Utah portion of the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area and to implement the program throughout Cache County.12

    12 Chapter 5—Control Strategies of the Utah Moderate PM2.5 SIP TSD.

    The preliminary cost analysis for extending the I/M program to the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area shows a cost effectiveness of approximately $6,000 to $8,000 per ton of emissions reduced per year. UDAQ concluded that this was within the range of costs associated with other control measures which were under consideration for inclusion in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP; therefore, it was economically feasible. Furthermore, similar programs have been successfully operated in Utah, Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber Counties and have proven to be both technologically and economically feasible.

    The EPA's motor vehicle emissions model, MOVES2010a, was used to identify the effectiveness of the I/M program in the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. For 2015, MOVES predicted emission reductions of 0.21 tpd for NOX, and 0.21 tpd for VOC. UDAQ concluded that the I/M program met RACM and was retained as part of the overall control strategy for the area.

    Additionally, UDAQ provided information for On-Road Mobile programs that were promulgated at the federal level. The Tier 2 program was promulgated by the EPA on April 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698; February 10, 2000) and was phased in between 2004 and 2008. Tier 2 set a single set of standards for all light duty vehicles and required refiners to reduce gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. UDAQ provided estimates provided by the EPA that the Tier 2 program would reduce oxides of nitrogen emission by at least 2,220,000 tpy nationwide in 2020.13 Tier 2 has also contributed in reducing VOC and direct PM emissions from light duty vehicles. Additional on-road mobile source emissions improvements that UDAQ highlights are from federal regulations for heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The Highway Diesel Rule, which aimed at reducing pollution from heavy-duty diesel highway vehicles, was finalized on January 18, 2001 (66 FR 5002). Under the rule, beginning in 2007, (with a phase-in through 2010) heavy-duty diesel highway vehicle emissions were required to be reduced by as much as 90 percent with a goal of complete fleet replacement by 2030. In order to enable the updated emission reduction technologies necessitated by the rule, beginning in 2006 (with a phase-in through 2009) refiners were required to begin producing cleaner-burning ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Specifically, the rule required a 97 percent reduction in sulfur content from 500 parts per million (ppm) to 15 ppm. This program was estimated to reduce PM and oxides of nitrogen from heavy duty engines by 90 percent and 95 percent below current standard levels set out in the rule, respectively.14 Table 4 below shows emissions in tons per day for the 2010 baseline and projected 2015 inventories.

    13 65 FR 6698; February 10, 2000.

    14 66 FR 5002; January 18, 2001.

    Table 4—On-Road Mobile Source Baseline 2010 and Projected 2015 Emissions Inventories of Typical Winter Inversion Day (tpd) 2010 PM2.5 NOX VOC SO2 2015 PM2.5 NOX VOC SO2 Cache County, UT 0.37 6.48 4.99 0.04 0.28 4.49 3.35 0.03 c. Off-Road Mobile Sources

    UDAQ did not consider any additional SIP controls for off-road mobile sources beyond those already promulgated at the federal level. Emission reductions from these federal controls were taken indirectly because their effectiveness has been incorporated into the NONROAD model. Table 5 below summarizes the 2010 base year and 2015 projection year annual emissions from non-road mobile sources in Cache County which contains the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area.

    Table 5—2010 Base Year and 2015 Projection Year Non-Road Mobile, Aircraft, Locomotives Emissions Inventory (tpy) 2010 PM2.5 NOX VOC SO2 2015 PM2.5 NOX VOC SO2 Cache County 492.47 1,144.85 61.99 8.55 360.63 901.09 49.21 2.88

    Chapter 5 of UDAQ's TSD provides a detailed description of what control measures were included in the modeling.

    3. EPA's Evaluation of the RACM/RACT Regulations

    The EPA is proposing to approve UDAQ's determination that a RACT analysis for the Pepperidge Farms facility was not necessary, as the SIP demonstrates attainment based on the other control measures included in the SIP. The EPA agrees with UDAQ's underlying justification for including the I/M program in the Logan, UT-ID attainment plan. UDAQ analyzed the measure as technologically and economically feasible and therefore RACM; however, the measure was implemented in the fifth and sixth year after designation. UDAQ did not have the benefit of the EPA's distinction in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule between RACM and additional reasonable measures at the time the RACM analysis for the I/M program was developed. We therefore consider the I/M program to be an additional reasonable measure and we are proposing to approve it as such. The EPA notes that, with the exception of timing of control measure implementation, the standard for the two types of control measures is the same: technological and economic feasibility. Additionally, the EPA agrees with UDAQ's reliance on federal on-road mobile regulations for other on-road mobile emission reductions in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP and is proposing to approve UDAQ's determination. We are also proposing to approve UDAQ's determination that additional off-road measures are not necessary given that the federal measures will provide further emission reductions for the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP. The EPA is not proposing to determine whether the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 attainment SIP has fully met all requirements for RACM/RACT found in CAA subparts 1 and 4. This determination will be made at a later date.

    D. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 1. Requirements for Transportation Conformity and MVEBs

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. The EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR 93, Subpart A requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestone. To effectuate its purpose, the EPA's conformity rule requires a demonstration that emissions from a Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval, are consistent with the MVEB(s) contained in a control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the attainment, RFP or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).

    The EPA notes that PM2.5 attainment plans should identify MVEBs for direct PM2.5, NOX and all other PM2.5 precursors where on-road mobile source emissions are determined to significantly contribute to PM2.5 levels in the nonattainment area. For the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP, UDAQ identified mobile source VOC emissions as a significant contributor to the formation of PM2.5 in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area. For direct PM2.5 SIP MVEBs, the MVEB should include direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes, brake wear, and tire wear. In addition, a state must also consider whether re-entrained road dust is a significant contributor and should be included in the direct PM2.5 MVEB.15 With respect to this requirement, the EPA reviewed information, data, and an analysis from the UDAQ that sufficiently documented that re-entrained road dust emissions were negligible and meet the criteria of 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3) for not needing to be included in the direct PM2.5 MVEB.

    15 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(f); see also conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036 (July 1, 2004).

    2. MVEBs Identified in the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP

    Utah's Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP Section IX. Part A.23 was submitted to meet the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, subparts 1 and 4 for “Moderate” PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The State's attainment plan specified the maximum mobile source emissions of PM2.5, NOX and VOC allowed in 2015, the attainment year. These mobile source emissions were then identified by the State as the SIP's MVEBs and are to be used by the Cache MPO to demonstrate transportation conformity for the Cache MPO's RTP and TIP. The attainment plan's 2015 MVEBs include direct PM2.5, NOX, and VOC emissions from vehicle exhaust/evaporation, tire wear and brake wear. The identified MVEBs were included in Table 7.1 of the SIP and are identified as: Direct PM2.5 is 0.32 tpd, NOX is 4.49 tpd, and VOC is 3.23 tpd.

    We note that prior to December 31, 2015, the EPA had found the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 MVEBs were adequate as described in the transportation conformity adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 93.118(e). Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we review a submitted plan to determine whether the MVEBs, when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to a given SIP submission). We described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs in our July 1, 2004, Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments (69 FR 40004). We used these resources in making our adequacy determination.

    On March 23, 2015, we announced receipt of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 attainment plan at the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) adequacy Web site and requested public comment on the adequacy of the MVEBs by April 22, 2015. We did not receive any comments during the comment period. We sent a letter to the UDAQ on June 17, 2015, stating that the submitted Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 attainment plan SIP revision MVEBs were adequate for transportation conformity purposes. We announced our adequacy finding in the Federal Register on September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54788); effective September 28, 2015.

    3. MVEB Trading, for Purposes of Demonstrating Transportation Conformity, in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP

    The EPA's transportation conformity rule allows for trading between direct PM2.5 and NOX and VOC precursor MVEBs, so long as the SIP establishes an appropriate mechanism for such trades.16

    16 40 CFR 93.124(b).

    As discussed in section 7.6 “Transportation Conformity PM2.5 Budgets” of the Logan UT-ID PM2.5 attainment plan, the SIP revision establishes a MVEB trading mechanism to allow for future increases in on-road mobile sources direct PM2.5 emissions to be offset by future decreases in NOX and VOC precursor emissions from on-road mobile sources. These ratios were developed from data from the air quality attainment plan's dispersion modeling. Section 7.6 of the SIP and the Logan UT-ID PM2.5 attainment plan's Technical Support Documentation Weight-of-Evidence information 17 provide the following modeling-derived trading ratios: Future increases in on-road mobile sources direct PM2.5 emissions may be offset with future decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile sources at a NOX to PM2.5 ratio of 13.66 to 1 and/or future decreases in VOC emissions from on-road mobile sources at a VOC to PM2.5 ratio of 22.84 to 1.

    17 “PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Weight-Of-Evidence to the Model Attainment Test,” section 1.9, pages 64 and 65.

    The SIP notes that this trading mechanism will only be used by the Cache MPO for transportation conformity determination analyses for years after 2015. The SIP further notes that to ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability to meet the NOX or VOC budgets, the NOX emission reductions available to supplement the direct PM2.5 MVEB shall only be those remaining after the 2015 NOX MVEB has been met. Also, the VOC emissions reductions available to supplement the direct PM2.5 budget shall only be those remaining after the 2015 VOC MVEB has been met. The SIP further articulates that clear documentation of the calculations used in the MVEB trading are to be included in the conformity determination analysis as prepared by the Cache MPO.

    4. Evaluation and Proposed Action

    The EPA has evaluated the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 attainment plan's emission inventories and attainment demonstration modeling as described in sections above. Based on our evaluation, we have determined that the direct PM2.5, NOX, and VOC MVEBs are appropriately derived from the SIP and are acceptable. We have also evaluated the description and derivation of the MVEB trading mechanism and the supporting data from the SIP's attainment demonstration modeling/Weight-Of-Evidence information and find those acceptable. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Logan UT-ID PM2.5 attainment plan's MVEBs of direct PM2.5 of 0.32 tpd, NOX of 4.49 tpd, and VOC of 3.23 tpd. In addition, we are also proposing to approve the MVEB trading mechanism as documented in section 7.6 of the SIP.

    V. Summary of the EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed in section IV above, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory, modeled attainment demonstration, determination for Major Stationary Source RACT, determination for On-Road Mobile Sources RACM, determination of Cache County I/M program as additional reasonable measures, determination for Off-Road Mobile Sources RACM, and 2015 MVEB for the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 Moderate SIP.

    A. Proposed Approval

    1. The EPA is proposing the following actions on the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP:

    a. Approve the 2010 base year and 2015 projection year emissions inventories;

    b. Approve the modeled attainment demonstration;

    c. Approve the RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measure demonstrations for on-road mobile, Cache County I/M Program, off-road mobile and point sources; and

    d. Approve the 2015 direct PM2.5, NOX and VOC MVEBs and the MVEB trading mechanism.

    VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The EPA proposes to determine that the portions of the Logan UT-ID PM2.5 SIP that we are acting on are consistent with the applicable requirements of the Act. Furthermore, these portions do not relax any previously approved SIP provision; thus they do not otherwise interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each revision to an implement plan submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing. On September 3, 2014, the Air Quality Board proposed for public comment the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 attainment plan. The public comment period was held from October 1 to October 31, 2014, with a public hearing being held on October 20, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Air Quality Board adopted the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 attainment plan and became effective on December 4, 2014. Therefore, CAA section 110(l) requirements are satisfied.

    VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the approval of portions of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 Moderate SIP submitted by the state of Utah as discussed in section IV of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action approves state law as meeting federal requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

    • is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25960 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0314; FRL-9970-76] Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for α-Methyl Mannoside for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces EPA's receipt of an initial filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0314, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, EPA seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA is taking public comment on the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

    PP 6F8506. Brandt iHammer, 479 Village Park Dr., Powell, OH 43065, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the plant regulator α-Methyl Mannoside in or on all raw agricultural commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because, based on the physical and chemical properties of a-Methyl Mannoside, as well as minimum exposure to the active ingredient in a formulated product applied to raw agricultural commodities, the use of α-Methyl Mannoside is not likely to result in significant residues, environmental persistence or bioaccumulation.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: November 15, 2017. Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26093 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 231 Monday, December 4, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0094] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Foot-And-Mouth Disease: Prohibition on Importation of Farm Equipment AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the importation of used farm equipment into the United States from regions affected with foot-and-mouth disease.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0094.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0094, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0094 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on foot-and-mouth disease and the prohibition on importation of farm equipment, contact Dr. Tracye Butler, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Foot-And-Mouth Disease: Prohibition on Importation of Farm Equipment.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0195.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the importation of animals, animal products, and other articles into the United States to prevent the introduction of animal diseases and pests. The regulations for the importation of animals, animal products, and other articles into the United States are contained in 9 CFR parts 92 through 98.

    In part 94, §  94.1(c) prohibits the importation of used farm equipment into the United States from regions where APHIS considers foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) or rinderpest to exist unless the equipment has been steam-cleaned prior to export to the United States so that it is free of exposed dirt and other particulate matter. Such equipment must be accompanied by an original certificate, signed by an authorized official of the national animal health service of the exporting region, stating that the farm equipment after its last use and prior to export, was steam-cleaned free of all exposed dirt and other particulate matter.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of this information collection activity, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of Burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.2 hours per response.

    Respondents: Exporters of farm equipment and foreign animal health authorities from regions where FMD or rinderpest exist.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 71.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 105.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 7,458.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,492 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of November 2017. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26058 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0084] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Approval of Laboratories for Conducting Aquatic Animal Tests for Export Health Certificates AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with its efforts to certify certain laboratories that conduct aquatic animal testing for export activities.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0084.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0084, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0084 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on conducting aquatic animal tests for export health certificates, contact Dr. Katharine Starzel, Aquaculture Liaison Coordinator, 1408 24th Street, Ruskin, FL 33570; (813) 671-5230. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Approval of Laboratories for Conducting Aquatic Animal Tests for Export Health Certificates.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0429.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.) is the primary Federal law governing the protection of animal health. The AHPA gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The Secretary may also prohibit or restrict import or export of any animal or related material if necessary to prevent the spread of any livestock or poultry pest or disease.

    Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and enhancing the ability of U.S. producers to compete in the global market of animal and animal product trade. To facilitate the export of U.S. animals and animal products, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains information regarding the import health requirements of other countries for animals and animal products, including aquaculture animals, exported from the United States.

    While APHIS does not currently require the approval or certification of laboratories that conduct disease tests for the export of aquaculture animals, some countries that import these animals from the United States require them to be tested for certain diseases and the test results recorded on the export certificates. In addition, the test results must originate from a laboratory approved by the competent authority of the exporting country, which is APHIS in this case. State, university, and private laboratories can voluntarily seek APHIS approval of individual diagnostic methods. Though APHIS does not have regulations for the approval or certification of laboratories that conduct tests for the export of aquaculture animals, APHIS provides this approval as a service to U.S. exporters who export aquaculture animals to countries that require this certification.

    APHIS evaluates diagnostic methods for detecting aquatic animal pathogens listed by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in the OIE diagnostic manual and other supporting scientific literature. APHIS lists the laboratories approved to conduct diagnostic testing in support of export health certification of aquatic species at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/downloads/ApprovedLabs_Aquaculture.pdf. Once approved, the laboratories are inspected by APHIS every 2 years to maintain their approval.

    The approval of laboratories to conduct tests for the export of aquaculture animals requires the use of certain information collection activities including notification of intent to request approval, application for APHIS approval, protocol statement, submission and recordkeeping of sample copies of diagnostic reports, quality assurance/control plans and their recordkeeping, notification of proposed changes to assay protocols, recordkeeping of supporting assay documentation, and request for removal of approved status.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of Burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 28.11 hours per response.

    Respondents: State, university, and private laboratory personnel.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 12.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 183.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 2,205.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 62,000 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of November 2017. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26060 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0085] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; National Veterinary Services Laboratories Request Forms AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with its efforts to safeguard the health of the U.S. livestock and poultry populations by the use of National Veterinary Services Laboratories request forms.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0085.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0085, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0085 or in our reading Room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on National Veterinary Services Laboratories request forms, contact Ms. Lori Anderson, Chief of Staff, STAS, VS, APHIS, 1920 Dayton Ave., Ames, IA 50010; (515) 337-7405. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: National Veterinary Services Laboratories Request Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0430.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.) provides the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to prohibit or restrict, through orders and regulations, the importation or entry of any animal, article, or means of conveyance if the U.S. Department of Agriculture determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction or spread of any pest or disease of livestock within the United States. Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population.

    As an element of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) disease prevention mission, the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) safeguard U.S. animal health by ensuring that timely and accurate laboratory support is provided through a nationwide animal health diagnostic system. NVSL's work necessitates the use of several information collection activities including requests for reagents or supplies, NVSL contact information updates, and NVSL applications for laboratory training.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response.

    Respondents: Domestic and foreign diagnostic laboratories (Federal, State, university, or private), researchers (academia, private, government), and private veterinary practitioners.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 652.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 4.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 2,800.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 692 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, on November 29, 2017. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26059 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0095] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Poultry Meat and Other Poultry Products From Sinaloa and Sonora; Poultry and Pork Transiting the United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora and for pork and poultry products transiting the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0095.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0095, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0095 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico, and poultry and pork transiting the United States, contact Dr. Magde Elshafie, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Poultry Meat and Other Poultry Products From Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico; Poultry and Pork Transiting the United States.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0144.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Animal Health Protection Act is the primary Federal law governing the protection of animal health. The law gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The Secretary may also prohibit or restrict the import or export of any animal or related material if necessary to prevent the spread of any livestock or poultry pest or disease.

    Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and for enhancing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services' ability to allow U.S. animal producers to compete in the world market of animal and animal product trade. APHIS is the agency charged with carrying out disease prevention by regulating the importation of animals and animal products into the United States. The regulations under which APHIS conducts these disease prevention activities are contained in title 9, chapter 1, subchapter D, parts 91 through 99, of the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations govern the importation of animals and animal products.

    APHIS currently places certain restrictions on the importation and in-transit movement of fresh (chilled or frozen) pork and pork products from Mexico because of the presence of classical swine fever (CSF) in some areas of Mexico.1 However, the regulations in § 94.15 allow pork and pork products from certain Mexican States to transit the United States, under seal, for export to another country.

    1 On August 8, 2017, APHIS published a notice of availability of an evaluation of the CSF status of Mexico. The notice, supporting documents, and the comment we received may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=APHIS-2016-0038.

    In addition, the regulations in § 94.6 provide the requirements for, among other things, the importation of poultry carcasses, parts, products, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) from regions where Newcastle disease (ND) is considered to exist. However, § 94.33 allows poultry carcasses, parts, products, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) that do not qualify for entry into the United States to transit the United States via land ports, for immediate export, from Mexican States that Mexico considers to be free of ND. APHIS believes that allowing such in-transit movements presents a negligible risk of introducing ND or CSF into the United States while simultaneously avoiding unnecessary restrictions on trade.

    APHIS also currently has regulations in place that restrict the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Mexico due to the presence of ND in that country. However, under the regulations in § 94.30, APHIS allows the importation of poultry meat and poultry products from the Mexican States of Sinaloa and Sonora, if imported according to APHIS' requirements, because APHIS has determined that poultry meat and products from these two Mexican States pose a negligible risk of introducing ND into the United States.

    To ensure these items are safe for importation, APHIS requires that information collection activities take place such as foreign meat inspection certificates, serially numbered seals, applications for import permits, emergency action notification, and pre-arrival notifications.

    The information collection requirements above are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control numbers 0579-0144 (Importation of Poultry Meat and other Poultry Products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico) and 0579-0145 (Poultry and Pork Products Transiting the United States). After OMB approves this combined information collection package (0579-0144), APHIS will retire OMB control number 0579-0145.

    In addition, as a result of merging these information collection activities, APHIS has revised the title of this information collection from “Importation of Poultry Meat and other Poultry Products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico”, to “Importation of Poultry Meat and Other Poultry Products From Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico; Poultry and Pork Transiting the United States.”

    We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.9 hours per response.

    Respondents: Federal animal health authorities in Mexico and U.S. importers and exporters of poultry meat, other poultry products, pork, and pork products from Mexico.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 400.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.40.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 562.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 558 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of November 2017. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26057 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Timber Sale Contract Operations and Administration AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the renewal of the currently approved information collection 0596-0225, Timber Sale Contract Operations and Administration.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before February 2, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Carl Maass, Natural Resources Research Center, 2150 Centre Ave., Building A, Suite 316, Fort Collins, CO 80526. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to (202) 205-1045 or by Email to: [email protected]

    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Office of the Director, Forest Management, Third Floor, Southwest Wing, Yates Building, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead at (202) 205-1496 to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carl Maass, Forest Management Staff, at (970) 295-5961. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Timber Sale Contract Operations and Administration.

    OMB Number: 0596-0225.

    Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2018.

    Type of Request: Renewal without Change.

    Abstract: Forest Service contracts for the sale of timber and other forest products are bilateral contracts in which both contracting parties are bound to fulfill obligations reciprocally. By their nature, bilateral contracts require both parties to routinely share information and enter into agreements pertaining to operations and performance. Some information collected under Forest Service contracts is required by laws, regulations, and/or timber sale policies. Each contract specifies information the contractor will be required to provide, including the timing and frequency of the information collection.

    The type and amount of information collected varies depending on the size, complexity, and length of each contract, and external factors such as weather and market conditions. The information collected includes plans, requests, agreements, and notices necessary for operations under the terms of the contracts. Forest Service officers collect the information from contractors who may be individuals, private sector businesses, or other government entities. The information is submitted in a variety of formats including Forest Service forms, Government Standard and/or Common Forms, forms developed by individual contractors, charts, maps, email messages, facsimiles, and letters. Also, to assist small contractors and lessen their burden, individual Contracting Officers may provide optional forms for some of the information collected.

    Depending on the purpose of the specific information collection, the information may be submitted by electronic mail, facsimile, conventional mail, or hand delivery. The information is needed by the Agency for a variety of uses associated with the operations and administration of contracts for the sale of timber and other forest products, in order to: (1) Plan and schedule contract administration workloads, (2) plan and schedule the delivery of government furnished materials needed by contractors, (3) assure the safety of the public in the vicinity of contract work, (4) identify contractor resources that may be used in emergency fire-fighting situations, (5) determine contractor eligibility for additional contract time, (6) determine contractor eligibility for re-determining contract rates, (7) monitor compliance with domestic processing requirements, (8) monitor compliance with Small Business Administration requirements, (9) process agreements and modifications, (10) inspect and accept work and (11) properly process payment bonds.

    Forms Associated With This Information Collection

    FS-2400-0076 Pre-Award Waiver, Release, and Limitation of Liability Agreement: This form was developed for limited use when the apparent high bidder of a sale that is the subject of litigation requests to have the sale awarded prior to the litigation being resolved.

    The following forms are available for optional use by timber sale purchasers. These forms were developed to assist small purchasers in submitting all of the information that the contract requires be included in these plans and schedules:

    FS-2400-0077 General Plan of Operation. No changes.

    FS-2400-0078 Annual Operating Schedule. No changes.

    FS-2400-0079 Specified Road Schedule of Proposed Progress. No changes.

    The following forms are for mandatory use when purchaser requests changes to the terms of the contract:

    FS-2400-0010 Agreement Extend and Modify Timber Sale or Integrated Resource Timber Contract. This form is required to be used when a contract is extended or modified under the terms of the contract. No changes.

    FS-2400-0011 Waiver of Time Limit: Required for use when additional time is needed for a Purchaser to complete non-timber removal work after the contract terminates. No changes.

    FS-2400-0012 Third Party Agreement: Required for use when a Purchaser requests that another party take over operational responsibility for timber sale contract. No changes.

    FS-2400-0016 Request for Cooperative Work: Required for use when a Purchaser requests Forest Service to assume the Purchaser's obligation to perform work under the contract. No changes.

    The following forms are for mandatory use when purchaser requests the use of a Performance Bond or Blanket Payment Bond on the contract:

    FS-6500-12 Payment Bond (for Timber Sales and Stewardship Contracts). No changes.

    FS-6500-12a Blanket Payment Bond. No changes.

    Type of Respondents: Timber sale and forest products contractors.

    Estimated Annual Number of Contracts: 3,400.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,370.

    Estimated Annual Responses: 128,100.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 93.5.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 40,700 hours.

    Estimate of Average Burden per Response: 0.32 hours.

    To see forms displaying versions currently in use can be viewed on the World Wide Web/Internet site at: https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/2018-forms-update.shtml, and in the Office of the Director, Forest Management, Third Floor, Southwest Wing, Yates Building, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead at (202) 205-1496 to facilitate entry into the building.

    Comment Is Invited

    Comment is invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes or the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including name and address when provided, will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 15, 2017. Christopher French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25958 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Qualified Products Lists for Fire Chemicals for Wildland Fire Management AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension with no revision of a currently approved information collection, Qualified Products Lists for Fire Chemicals for Wildland Fire Management.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before February 2, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Dave Haston, Branch Chief, Equipment and Chemicals, USDA Forest Service, National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S. Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705.

    Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 208-387-5642 or by email to: [email protected]

    The public may inspect comments received at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), Jack Wilson Building, in Boise, Idaho, Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 208-387-5348 to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shirley Zylstra, Missoula Technology and Development Center (MTDC), 406-329-4859, Cecilia Johnson, (MTDC), 406-329-4819, or Dave Haston, NIFC, 208-387-5642. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Qualified Products Lists for Fire Chemicals for Wildland Fire Management.

    OMB Number: 0596-0182.

    Expiration Date of Approval: April 30, 2018.

    Type of Request: Extension with no revision.

    Abstract: The Forest Service and cooperating wildland firefighting agencies need adequate types and quantities of qualified fire chemical products available to accomplish fire management activities as safely and effectively as possible. To accomplish this objective, the Agency evaluates and pre-approves commercial wildland firefighting chemicals. The Agency is required to submit the formulations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries during the evaluation process. All products must meet the requirements of specifications identified and maintained by the Wildland Fire Chemical Systems (WFCS) staff at the National Technology & Development Program (Missoula). After a product evaluation has been completed successfully, the product is added to the Qualified Products List (QPL) for the appropriate product type. All Federal procurements of wildland fire chemicals are made from these lists.

    To initiate an evaluation, product manufacturers (or authorized suppliers) enter into an agreement with the Forest Service and pay all costs associated with the submission and evaluation of the product. Once the agreement is in place and funds are deposited to cover the associated costs, the manufacturer submits the following information to WFCS:

    1. List of the specific ingredients and quantity used to prepare the product;

    2. Identification of a specific company as the source of supply for each ingredient;

    3. Copies of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the product and for each ingredient used to prepare the product (from the company that supplies that chemical); and

    4. Specific mixing requirements and performance information.

    Review of the submitted information assures that the product does not contain ingredients meeting the criteria for Chemicals of Concern. Chemicals of Concern are defined as chemicals appearing on one or more of the following lists:

    • Agency list of unacceptable ingredients;

    • National Toxicology Program (NTP) Annual Report on Carcinogens;

    • International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs for Potential Carcinogen;

    • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) List of Extremely Hazardous Substances and Their Threshold Planning Quantities;

    • Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Acutely Hazardous and Toxic Wastes; and

    • Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know (EPCRA), Toxic Release Inventory.

    A risk assessment, performed at the manufacturer expense, is required. The risk assessment, performed by a third party selected by the Agency, assesses the products and levels of ingredients found in typical applications relative to human and environmental impact.

    Each product submitted is tested to determine the mammalian and aquatic toxicity of the product and must meet specific levels of performance to minimize potential risk during firefighting operations. Additional tests are performed to determine the effectiveness of the product to reduce spread rate and intensity of the fire by application directly on or near the fire. A number of product characteristics are measured over the operational performance range of the product to ensure that the product meets the needs of the firefighters in the field.

    The collection of this information for each product submission is necessary due to the length of time needed to test the product (18 to 24 months) and the need to ensure that products do not pose a hazard for laboratory personnel during the evaluation prior to purchase and use. This information collection and the product evaluation must be conducted on an ongoing basis to ensure the Agency can solicit and award contracts in a timely manner to provide firefighters with safe and effective wildland fire chemical products.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: 4.5 hours.

    Type of Respondents: Businesses (manufacturers and suppliers) of fire chemicals for wildland fire management.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 3.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 3.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 40.5 hours.

    Comment Is Invited

    Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record.

    Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Dated: November 13, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25963 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Commission Public Briefing.

    DATES:

    Friday, December 8, 2017, 9:00 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20245 (Entrance on F Street NW.).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Walch, (202) 376-8371; TTY: (202) 376-8116; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission will hold a public briefing: The School-to-Prison Pipeline: The Intersections of Students of Color with Disabilities. This meeting is open to the public.

    The Commission's focused investigation will examine school districts' compliance with federal laws designed to ensure the safety of students of color with disabilities against discrimination, and whether laws adequately protect these students from discriminatory disciplinary actions and policies.

    The Commission will hear presentations from diverse stakeholders, including advocacy groups and academics. Following these presentations, the Commission will hold an open comment period from 1:00-2:00 p.m. EST. Individuals who wish to participate in the open comment period should sign-up at the Commission between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. EST. Each individual will have up to three (3) minutes to speak, with spots allotted on a first-come, first-serve basis. In addition, the Commission welcomes submission of additional material for consideration as we prepare a report following the briefing; please submit such information to [email protected]

    The event will live-stream at https://www.youtube.com/user/USCCR/videos and there will be a public call-in line (listen-only): 1-800-479-9001; conference ID 8362937. If attending in person, we ask that you RSVP to [email protected] Persons with disabilities who need accommodation should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at [email protected] at least three business days before the date of the meeting.

    Agenda I. Introductory Remarks by Chair Catherine E. Lhamon 9:00-9:10 a.m. II. Panel One: Federal Education Policy 9:10-10:30 a.m. • Anurima Bhargava: Former Chief of Educational Opportunities Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice • Eve Hill: Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice • Kristen Harper: Former Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education • Rebecca Cokley: Former Executive Director, National Council on Disability III. Break 10:30-10:40 a.m. IV. Panel Two: Stakeholders, Researchers, Experts on Special Education and the School-to-Prison Pipeline 10:40 a.m.-12:00 p.m. • Max Eden: Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute • James Scanlan: Attorney studying statistical discrimination on educational and achievement disparities and studies federal education statutes • Dan Losen: Director, Center for Civil Rights Remedies, University of California, Los Angeles • Monique Morris: Founder and President, National Black Women's Justice Institute, with expertise in the areas of education, civil rights, juvenile and social justice V. Break 12:00-1:00 p.m. VI. Open Comment Period 1:00-2:00 p.m. VII. Adjourn 2:00 p.m. Dated: November 30, 2017. Brian Walch, Director, Communications and Public Engagement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26145 Filed 11-30-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-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: Annual Retail Trade Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0013.

    Form Number(s): SA-44, SA-44A, SA-44C, SA-44D, SA-44E, SA-44N, SA-44S, SA-44T.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 20,067.

    Average Hours per Response: Because of the inclusion of the detailed operating expenses questions in the 2017 survey year ARTS (collected in 2018), the average burden per respondent for that year will be 3 hours and 19 minutes. In survey years 2018 and 2019, the average burden will be 37 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 30,531.

    Needs and Uses: The Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS) covers employer firms with establishments located in the United States and classified in retail trade sector as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The survey requests firms to provide annual sales, sales tax, e-commerce sales, year-end inventories held inside and outside the United States, total operating expenses, purchases, and accounts receivable. We also request, for selected industries, sales and e-commerce sales by merchandise line.

    The data collected in the ARTS provide a current statistical picture of the retail portion of consumer activity. These data are collected to provide a sound statistical basis for the formation of policy by various government agencies, as well as to serve as a benchmark for the estimates compiled from the Monthly Retail Trade Survey. Results will be made available, at the United States summary level, for selected retail trade industries approximately fifteen months after the end of the reference year.

    Every 5 years, ARTS requests data on detailed operating expenses. During the 2017 collection survey year that will occur in 2018, ARTS will collect detailed operating expenses. The last time ARTS collected detailed operating expenses was in 2013 for the 2012 survey year. Estimates are published based on the NAICS, which has been widely adopted throughout both the public and private sectors.

    This request is for the clearance of eight electronic report worksheets, the SA-44, SA-44A, SA-44C, SA-44D, SA-44E, SA-44N, SA-44S, and SA-44T. These eight electronic worksheets enable us to collect information on a NAICS basis and to request similar data items. Variations in the electronic worksheets are needed to address the size of the firm, kind-of-business, or data items requested.

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses the data to estimate the change in private inventories component of gross domestic product (GDP) and output in both the benchmark and annual input-output (I-O) accounts and GDP by industry. Data on sales taxes are also used to prepare estimates of GDP by industry and to derive industry output for the I-O accounts. Data on detailed operating expenses, are collected on this survey quinquennially and are used to produce national estimates of value added, gross output, and intermediate inputs and serve as a benchmark for the annual industry accounts, which provide the control totals for the GDP-by-state accounts.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the data as input to its Producer Price Indexes and in developing productivity measurements. The Federal Reserve Board uses the accounts receivables balances to measure consumer credit. Private businesses use the estimates in computing business activity indexes.

    Other government agencies and businesses use the data to satisfy a variety of public and business needs such as economic market analysis, company performance, and forecasting future demands.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Section 131 and 182.

    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. 2017-26076 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-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: International Trade Administration.

    Title: Steel Import License.

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0245.

    Form Number(s): ITA-4141P.

    Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 3,500.

    Average Hours per Response: 0.17 hour/response (10 minutes).

    Burden Hours: 92,878.

    Needs and Uses: In order to monitor steel imports in real-time and to provide the public with real-time data, the Department of Commerce (DOC) must collect and provide timely aggregated summaries about these imports. The Steel Import License proposed by the International Trade Administration of the DOC is the tool used to collect the necessary information. The Census Bureau currently collects import data and disseminates aggregate information about steel imports. However, the time required to collect, process, and disseminate this information through Census can take up to 70 days after importation of the product, giving interested parties and the public far less time to respond to injurious sales.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26089 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-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 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Commerce.

    Title: Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States—Transactions of U.S. Affiliate with Foreign Parent.

    OMB Control Number: 0608-0009.

    Form Number: BE-605.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Number of Responses: 17,200 annually.

    Average Hours per Response: One hour is the average, but may vary considerably among respondents because of differences in company size and complexity.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,200.

    Needs and Uses: The Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States—Transactions of U.S. Affiliate with Foreign Parent (Form BE-605) obtains quarterly data on transactions and positions between foreign-owned U.S. business enterprises and their “affiliated foreign groups” (i.e., their foreign parents and foreign affiliates of their foreign parents). The survey is a sample survey that covers all U.S. affiliates above a size-exemption level. The sample data are used to derive universe estimates of direct investment transactions, positions, and income in nonbenchmark years from similar data reported in the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, which is conducted every five years and will next be conducted for the fiscal year ending in 2017. The data collected through the BE-605 survey are essential for the preparation of the U.S. international transactions, national income and product, and input-output accounts and the international investment position of the United States. The data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of foreign direct investment in the United States, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. economy.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    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 OIRA [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26010 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Modification of June 27, 2017 Renewal of Temporary Denial Order Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, a/k/a Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Mahmoud Amini, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Kerman Aviation, a/k/a GIE Kerman Aviation, 42 Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris, France Sirjanco Trading LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates Mehdi Bahrami, Mahan Airways-Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey Al Naser Airlines, a/k/a al-Naser Airlines, a/k/a Alnaser Airlines and, Air Freight Ltd., Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq; and Al Amirat Street, Section 309, St. 3/H.20, Al Mansour, Baghdad, Iraq; and P.O. Box 28360, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and P.O. Box 911399, Amman 11191, Jordan Ali Abdullah Alhay, a/k/a Ali Alhay, a/k/a Ali Abdullah Ahmed Alhay, Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq; and Anak Street, Qatif, Saudi Arabia 61177, Bahar Safwa General Trading, P.O. Box 113212, Citadel Tower, Floor-5, Office #504, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and P.O. Box 8709, Citadel Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Sky Blue Bird Group, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird Aviation, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird Ltd, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al Khaimah Trade Zone, United Arab Emirates; and Issam Shammout, a/k/a Muhammad Isam Muhammad Anwar Nur Shammout, a/k/a Issam Anwar, Philips Building, 4th Floor, Al Fardous Street, Damascus, Syria; and Al Kolaa, Beirut, Lebanon 151515; and 17-18 Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London, W1W 8RP, United Kingdom; and Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad. Hazar Sok. No.14/A Silivri, Istanbul, Turkey

    Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017) (“EAR” or the “Regulations”),1 I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) to modify the order that I issued on June 27, 2017, renewing the temporary denial order (“TDO”) in this matter (“June 27, 2017 TDO Renewal Order”).

    1 The Regulations, currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017), originally issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979. Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39,005 (August 16, 2017)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.) (2012).

    OEE has requested that the following parties be removed from the TDO:

    Ali Eslamian, 33 Cavendish Square, 4th Floor, London, W1G 0PW, United Kingdom; and 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, St. Johns Wood, London NW8 7RY, United Kingdom Equipco (UK) Ltd., 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, St. Johns Wood, London, NW8 7RY, United Kingdom Skyco (UK) Ltd., 33 Cavendish Square, 4th Floor, London, W1G 0PW, United Kingdom I. Pertinent Procedural History 2

    2 The June 27, 2017 TDO Renewal Order includes a more detailed procedural history relating to the TDO. See 82 FR 30,823 (July 3, 2017).

    On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement (“Assistant Secretary”), signed a TDO denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days on the grounds that its issuance was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The TDO was issued ex parte pursuant to Section 766.24(a), and went into effect on March 21, 2008, the date it was published in the Federal Register (“the TDO”). The TDO subsequently has been renewed in accordance with Section 766.24(d), including most recently on June 27, 2017.3 Parties have been added to or removed from the TDO at various times in renewal orders or though orders modifying or amending the TDO. As part of the August 24, 2011 TDO renewal, Ali Eslamian was added to the TDO as a related person. Equipco (UK) Ltd. and Skyco (UK) Ltd. were subsequently added to the TDO as related persons through a modification order issued and effective on April 9, 2012.

    3 The June 27, 2017 Order was effective upon issuance and was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30,823). The TDO previously had been renewed by orders issued and effective on, respectively, September 17, 2008, March 16, 2009, September 11, 2009, March 9, 2010, September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, February 15, 2012, August 9, 2012, February 4, 2013, July 31, 2013, January 24, 2014, July 22, 2014, January 16, 2015, July 13, 2015, January 7, 2016, July 7, 2016, December 30, 2016, and June 27, 2017. The August 24, 2011 renewal followed a modification of the TDO on July 1, 2011. The July 13, 2015 renewal followed a modification of the TDO on May 21, 2015. Each renewal or modification order also was effective upon issuance and published in the Federal Register.

    On June 27, 2017, I signed a renewal order denying for an additional 180 days the export privileges of Ali Eslamian, Equipco (UK) Ltd., and Skyco (UK) Ltd., as well as Mahan Airways, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, Bahar Safwa General Trading, Sky Blue Bird Group, and Issam Shammout. See 82 FR 30,823 (July 3, 2017). On September 28, 2017, I issued an order (“the Settlement Order”) approving a settlement agreement between BIS and Ali Eslamian, Equipco (UK) Ltd., and Skyco (UK) Ltd. (“the Settlement Agreement”), which, inter alia, resolves pursuant to that Order and the Settlement Agreement an administrative charge against Ali Eslamian for acting contrary to the terms of the TDO, in violation of Section 764.2(k) of the Regulations (“the Charging Letter”). In doing so, I found that the requirements of Section 766.23 of the Regulations had been met to include Equipco (UK) Ltd. and Skyco (UK) Ltd., two companies owned and operated by Ali Eslamian, in the Settlement Order as related persons.4 As part of the approved Settlement Agreement, OEE agreed to request that I remove Ali Eslamian, Equipco (UK) Ltd., and Skyco (UK) Ltd from the TDO. As indicated above, OEE has made that request.

    4 Following issuance of the Settlement Order, a copy of that Order, the Settlement Agreement, and the Charging Letter were posted on the Electronic FOIA page on BIS's Web site and can be found at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/index.php/electronic-foia/index-of-documents/7-electronic-foia/227-export-violations. In addition to other sanctions, the Settlement Order and Settlement Agreement provide that Ali Eslamian, Equipco (UK) Ltd., and Skyco (UK) Ltd. shall be subject to a conditionally-suspended denial order for a period of four years from the date of that Order.

    II. Findings

    Having considered OEE's request and the record herein, I find that Ali Eslamian, Equipco (UK) Ltd., and Skyco (UK) Ltd. should be removed from the TDO. The TDO shall remain in full force and effect as to Mahan Airways, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, Bahar Safwa General Trading, Sky Blue Bird Group, and Issam Shammout.

    III. Order

    It is therefore ordered:

    First, that MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; PEJMAN MAHMOOD KOSARAYANIFARD A/K/A KOSARIAN FARD, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; MAHMOUD AMINI, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; KERMAN AVIATION A/K/A GIE KERMAN AVIATION, 42 Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris, France; SIRJANCO TRADING LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; MAHAN AIR GENERAL TRADING LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates; and MEHDI BAHRAMI, Mahan Airways—Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey; AL NASER AIRLINES A/K/A AL-NASER AIRLINES A/K/A ALNASER AIRLINES AND AIR FREIGHT LTD., Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq, and Al Amirat Street, Section 309, St. 3/H.20, Al Mansour, Baghdad, Iraq, and P.O. Box 28360, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 911399, Amman 11191, Jordan; ALI ABDULLAH ALHAY A/K/A ALI ALHAY A/K/A ALI ABDULLAH AHMED ALHAY, Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq, and Anak Street, Qatif, Saudi Arabia 61177; BAHAR SAFWA GENERAL TRADING, P.O. Box 113212, Citadel Tower, Floor-5, Office #504, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 8709, Citadel Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; SKY BLUE BIRD GROUP A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD AVIATION A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD LTD A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al Khaimah Trade Zone, United Arab Emirates; and ISSAM SHAMMOUT A/K/A MUHAMMAD ISAM MUHAMMAD ANWAR NUR SHAMMOUT A/K/A ISSAM ANWAR, Philips Building, 4th Floor, Al Fardous Street, Damascus, Syria, and Al Kolaa, Beirut, Lebanon 151515, and 17-18 Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London, W1W 8RP, United Kingdom, and Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad. Hazar Sok. No.14/A Silivri, Istanbul, Turkey, and when acting for or on their behalf, any successors or assigns, agents, or employees (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or engaging in any other activity subject to the EAR; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or from any other activity subject to the EAR.

    Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

    Fourth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.

    In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR, Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, and/or Issam Shammout may, at any time, appeal their inclusion as a related person by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. A renewal request may be opposed by Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.

    A copy of this Order shall be provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading and each related person, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until December 26, 2017, unless renewed in accordance with Section 766.24(d) of the Regulations.

    Dated: November 16, 2017. Richard R. Majauskas, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25964 Filed 12-1-17; 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 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: International Trade Administration.

    Title: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; EU-U.S. Privacy Shield; Invitation for Applications for Inclusion on the List of Arbitrators.

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0277.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 60.

    Average Hours per Response: 240 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 240 hours.

    Needs and Uses: Under the Privacy Shield, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the European Commission have committed to implement an arbitration mechanism to provide European individuals with the ability to invoke binding arbitration to determine, for residual claims, whether an organization has violated its obligations under the Privacy Shield. The DOC and the European Commission will work together to implement the arbitration mechanism. Consistent with applicable law, DOC and the European Commission will develop a list of at least 20 arbitrators, chosen on the basis of independence, integrity, and expertise. Parties to a binding arbitration under this Privacy Shield mechanism may only select arbitrators from this list. The arbitral mechanism is a critical component of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework and must be implemented as soon as possible to preserve the integrity of the Privacy Shield program. More than 2,500 U.S.-based organizations currently rely on the Privacy Shield to transfer the personal data from Europe to the United States necessary to do business across the Atlantic. Such a data transfer mechanism is critically important, because it underpins almost $300 billion in digitally deliverable services traded across the Atlantic each year.

    Affected Public: Private individuals.

    Frequency: Recurrent, depending on the number of arbitrators required to retain an active list of 20 arbitrators.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26081 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-838] Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP 23) from India. The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Pidilite Industries Limited (Pidilite). The Department preliminarily finds that subject merchandise has been sold in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 4, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Gorelik or George Ayache, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-6905 or (202) 482-2623, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the Order 1 is CVP-23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-30-1, with the chemical name of diindolo [3,2-b:3′,2′-m]2 triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5, 15-diethy-5, 15-dihydro-, and molecular formula of C34 H22 Cl2 N4 O2. The subject merchandise includes the crude pigment in any form (e.g., dry powder, paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in the form of presscake and dry color. Pigment dispersions in any form (e.g., pigments dispersed in oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are not included within the scope of the order.

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 77988 (December 29, 2004) (the Order).

    2 The bracketed section of the product description, [3,2-b:3′,2′-m], is not business proprietary information. In this case, the brackets are simply part of the chemical nomenclature. See “Amendment to Petition for Antidumping Investigations of China and India and a Countervailing Duty Investigation of India on Imports of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 in the forms of Crude Pigment, Presscake and Dry Color Pigment,” dated December 3, 2003, at 8.

    The merchandise subject to the Order is classifiable under subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix 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 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 at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    3See Memorandum from James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India; 2015-2016” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    Adverse Facts Available

    Because mandatory respondent Pidilite has failed to provide requested information, and has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the Department in this review, we preliminarily determine to apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference (AFA) to this respondent, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Adjustment for Export Subsidies

    For Pidilite, in the original investigation, we subtracted the portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to export subsidies (17.02 percent) from the final dumping margin of 66.59 percent in order to calculate the cash-deposit rate of 49.57 percent.4 Since the publication of the Antidumping Duty Order we have not conducted an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on CVP 23 from India.5 Therefore, the portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to export subsidies currently in effect for Pidilite is 17.02 percent. Further, imports from Pidilite during the review period were subject to countervailing duties to offset export subsidies of 17.02 percent or more. Because the AFA rate we selected for this review is the margin we calculated for Pidilite in the investigation, we have adjusted the dumping margin to ensure that, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we do not collect duties attributable to export subsidies twice.

    4See Antidumping Duty Order.

    5See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015, 82 FR 42648 (September 11, 2017).

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that, for the period of December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016, the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Rate adjusted for export
  • subsidies
  • (percent)
  • Pidilite Industries Limited 66.59 49.57
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, there are no calculations to disclose in connection with these presliminary results because, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department preliminarily applied AFA to Pidilite, the only company that is subject to this review, and the Department has preliminarily determined as the AFA rate a dumping margin applied in a prior segment of this proceeding.

    Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.6 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.7 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.8

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    8See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined.9 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    9See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless the deadline is extended.10

    10See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.11 The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.12 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the adjusted rate of 49.57 percent if CBP has collected the appropriate countervailing duties on the same entry. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the unadjusted rate of 66.59 percent if the appropriate countervailing duties are not collected by CBP.

    11See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    12See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Pidilite will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 27.48 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.13 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    13See Antidumping Duty Order.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    The preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: November 27, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy performing the duties of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Affiliation IV. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences V. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-26069 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce has renewed the Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness on November 16, 2017.

    DATES:

    The Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness was renewed on November 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Boll, Supply Chain Team, Room 11014, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-1135; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce has renewed the Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness on November 16, 2017. This Notice is published in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (as amended, Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix, § 9). It has been determined that the Committee is necessary and in the public interest. The Committee was established pursuant to Commerce's authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512, established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., app. The Committee provides advice to the Secretary on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and to provide advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. The total number of members that may serve on the Committee is a maximum of 45.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Maureen Smith, Director, Office of Supply Chain and Professional & Business Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26021 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-469-805] Stainless Steel Bar From Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from Spain. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Sidenor Aceros Especiales, S.L. (Sidenor). The Department preliminarily finds that subject merchandise has been sold in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 4, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this investigation is SSB from Spain. For a full description of the scope see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.1

    1See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Spain; 2016-2017,” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and it 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 is available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that, for the period of March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017, the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

    2 On December 2, 2016, the Department determined that Sidenor is the successor-in-interest to Gerdau Aceros Especiales Europa S.L. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Spain, 81 FR 87021 (December 2, 2016).

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Sidenor Aceros Especiales, S.L. 2 13.62
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If Sidenor's weight-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate an importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. If Sidenor's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review where applicable.

    In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Sidenor for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Sidenor will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 25.77 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.3 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    3See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Spain, 59 FR 66931 (December 28, 1994).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of the antidumping duties reimburses.

    The preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 27, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy performing the duties of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of the Methodology a. Determination of the Comparison Method b. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis 5. Product Comparisons 6. Date of Sale 7. Export Price 8. Normal Value a. Home Market Viability as Comparison Market b. Level of Trade c. Sales to Affiliates d. Cost of Production 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test e. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices f. Price to Constructed Value Comparison 9. Currency Conversion 10. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-26064 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-991] Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 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 chlorinated isocyanurates (chloro isos) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. The administrative review covers three producers/exporters: (1) Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. (Hebei Jiheng); (2) Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. (Huayi); and (3) Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd. (Kangtai). We preliminarily determine that these companies received countervailable subsidies during the POR related to certain programs. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 4, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Hancock or Omar Qureshi, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1394 or (202) 482-5307, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are chloro isos, which are derivatives are cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones.1 Chloro isos are currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 2933.69.6050, 3808.50.4000, 3808.94.5000, and 3808.99.9500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    1 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results, published concurrently with this notice.

    Methodology

    On November 13, 2014, the Department published in the Federal Register a countervailing duty (CVD) order on chloro isos from the PRC.2 The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy (i.e., a financial contribution from an authority that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient), and that the subsidy is specific.3 In making this preliminary determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts otherwise available, with the application of adverse inferences.4 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.5 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided at the Appendix to this notice.

    2Id.

    3See 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.

    4See section 776(a) of the Act.

    5See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at 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 Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated an estimated individual countervailable subsidy rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated during the period of January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. We preliminarily determine these rates to be:

    Company Subsidy
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd 25.18 Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd 3.81 Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd 1.53
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    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). Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 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.

    6See 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.

    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.

    Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirement

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily assigned subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producer/exporters shown above. Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs, in the amounts shown above for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: November 27, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy performing the duties of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Application of CVD Law to Imports From the PRC IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Benchmarks VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Disclosure and Public Comment IX. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-26065 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-867] Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) obtained information, with respect to certain entities, sufficient to warrant the self-initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers (LPTs) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). Interested parties are invited to submit comments, as indicated below.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 4, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Moses Song, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5041.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On August 31, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on LPTs from Korea.1 Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (HHI) is one of the producers/exporters reviewed in the less-than fair-value investigation and has been reviewed in each subsequent administrative review of the Order. During the 2014/2015 administrative review, which is also the most recently completed administrative review, the Department assigned HHI an antidumping duty rate of 60.81 percent.2 To address concerns that certain merchandise may not be entering the United States at the appropriate cash deposit rate, the Department is self-initiating a changed circumstances review.

    1See Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 53177 (August 31, 2012) (the Order).

    2See Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 13432 (March 13, 2017) (2014/2015 Final Results).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this Order covers large liquid dielectric power transformers having a top power handling capacity greater than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes), whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete.

    Incomplete LPTs are subassemblies consisting of the active part and any other parts attached to, imported with or invoiced with the active parts of LPTs. The “active part” of the transformer consists of one or more of the following when attached to or otherwise assembled with one another: The steel core or shell, the windings, electrical insulation between the windings, the mechanical frame for an LPT.

    The product definition encompasses all such LPTs regardless of name designation, including but not limited to step-up transformers, step-down transformers, autotransformers, interconnection transformers, voltage regulator transformers, rectifier transformers, and power rectifier transformers.

    The LPTs subject to this Order are currently classifiable under subheadings 8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080, and 8504.90.9540 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive.

    Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review of the order. In this case, the Department is self-initiating a changed circumstances review based on information obtained (1) during the course of the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 administrative reviews, (2) via public search, and (3) from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, as detailed below.

    On March 13, 2017, the Department published the final results of the 2014/2015 antidumping administrative review (covering the period August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015), assigning a dumping rate of 60.81 percent to HHI.3

    3See 2014/2015 Final Results, 82 FR 13432 (March 13, 2017).

    On May 24, 2017, in connection with the 2015/2016 administrative review (covering the period August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016), HHI submitted English translations of HHI's 2016 Korean language financial statements, requested by the Department as part of HHI's response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.4 HHI's 2016 unconsolidated and consolidated financial statements, both of which ended on December 31, 2016, and became effective as of March 16, 2017, list the “tentative” name of a newly established company by “spin-off,” as “Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd.” 5 These financial statements also identify HHI as a company that still continued to exists after the “spin-off.” 6

    4See Memorandum, on the subject of “Placement of Factual Information: (1) Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.'s Financial Statements from the 2015/2016 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea and (2) Web site Information Regarding Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co., Ltd.,” dated concurrently with this notice (New Factual Information Placement Memorandum) at Attachment 1 (citing Letter from HHI to the Department, regarding “Large Power Transformers from South Korea: Hyundai's Response to Questions 48 and 49 and Question 35e of the Supplemental Section A Questionnaire,” dated May 24, 2017 (HHI's May 24, 2017, Questionnaire Response) at Attachment 1). We note that HHI and its U.S. affiliate, Hyundai Corporation USA (Hyundai USA), are collectively referred to as “Hyundai” in HHI's May 24, 2017, Questionnaire Response.

    5Id. (citing HHI's May 24, 2017, Questionnaire Response at Attachment 1). We note that HHI's May 24, 2017, Questionnaire Response at Attachment 1 contains HHI's 2016 unconsolidated financial statements named “Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. Separate Financial Statements December 31. 2016” (HHI's 2016 unconsolidated financial statements). Page 100 of HHI's 2016 unconsolidated financial statements notes that Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd. is a “{n}ewly established company by spin-off” and that HHI is a “{r}emaining company after spin-ff.” We also note that this attachment contains HHI's 2016 consolidated financial statements named “Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2016” (HHI's 2016 consolidated financial statements). The page 143 of HHI's 2016 consolidated financial statements notes that Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd. is a “{n}ewly established company by spin-off” and HHI is a “{r}emaining company after spin-off.” Both financial statements indicate that the date of spin-off is April 1, 2017.

    6Id. (citing HHI's May 24, 2017, Questionnaire Response at Attachment 1).

    Additionally, on or around August 14, 2017, a representative of Georgetown Economic Services, LLC (an economic consulting firm retained by Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP, counsel to the petitioner in the LPTs from Korea proceeding) contacted the Department.7 During this phone conversation, the representative expressed concern that subject merchandise produced by HHI may be entering the United States under the name “Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd.,” that this merchandise may be subject to the antidumping duty order on LPTs from Korea, and may be entering at the “all-others” rate of 22 percent, rather than the 60.81 percent rate assigned to HHI in the 2014/2015 antidumping administrative review.8

    7See Memorandum to the File from Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-executive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, regarding “Phone Call,” dated concurrently with this notice (Phone Call Memorandum).

    8See Phone Call Memorandum.

    In light of the information in HHI's 2016 financial statements and the phone conversation discussed above, the Department had concerns as to whether (1) Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd. may be entering subject merchandise produced by HHI into the United States and (2) merchandise entered by Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd. is entering at the appropriate rate. Because Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd. is a new entity, which has not been covered by a prior administrative review or the original investigation, it does not have its own company-specific cash deposit rate.

    To gather additional information regarding the above-referenced company (i.e., Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd.), the Department conducted a search of public information and found that Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co., Ltd., which has a similar name to the company identified in HHI's 2016 financial statements (i.e., Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd.), appears to be related to HHI and/or involved in the production and sales of power transformers.9 Additionally, the Department conducted a query of CBP import data for entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States from the Federal Register publication date of the 2014/2015 Final Results (i.e., March 13, 2017) to October 31, 2017.10 Because Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co., Ltd. has not been covered by a prior administrative review or the original investigation, it does not have its own company-specific cash deposit rate.

    9See New Factual Information Placement Memorandum, at Attachment 2. We note that although the company name is slightly different (i.e., “Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd.” from HHI's 2016 financial statements and “Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co., Ltd.” from its Web site), the names are very similar and HHI's financial statements state that “Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd.” is a tentative name. According to the Web site, Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co., Ltd. was established on April 3, 2017, which is after the effective date of HHI's 2016 financial statements (i.e., March 16, 2017) and the date of spin-off (i.e., April 1, 2017) identified in HHI's 2016 financial statements. We also note that the Web site of “Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co., Ltd.” states that “Hyundai Heavy Industries' Electric Systems Division . . . is making a fresh start as Hyundai Electric” and lists “Power Transformer” as one of its businesses. The history section of this Web site further indicates that Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co., Ltd. is engaged in the transformer business. In addition, under this Web site, HHI is listed as one of the “Family Site.”

    10See Memorandum, on the subject of “Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Import Data,” dated currently with this notice (CBP Memorandum).

    Based on (1) information contained in the CBP import data, (2) concerns that Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd., may be entering merchandise produced by HHI, (3) public information indicating that Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co., Ltd., which has a name similar to that of the company identified in the above-referenced phone call, appears to be involved in the production/sales of power transformers, and (4) the fact that neither of these entities have their own company-specific cash deposit rate, there is a serious concern that entries made by either of these entities since the 2014/2015 Final Results may include merchandise produced by HHI or otherwise may not be entering at the appropriate rate.

    In accordance with the above-referenced statute and regulation, and based on the information obtained above, the Department finds that there is information which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant initiation of such a review to determine whether action is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Order. Therefore, the Department is self-initiating a changed circumstances review to determine the appropriate cash deposit rate for any merchandise entered by either Hyundai Electric and energy Co., Ltd. or Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co., Ltd. since the publication of the 2014/2015 Final Results. This changed circumstances review may require an examination of whether these entities are a successor-in-interest to HHI or should be treated as a single entity with HHI pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit comments on the above-referenced information and the notice of initiation of this changed circumstances review by no later than 15 calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.11 Parties who wish to comment on the initiation of this changed circumstances review must file comments electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).12 Access to ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day on which it is due.13

    11 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed. See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    12See 19 CFR 351.303(b) and (f).

    13See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Preliminary and Final Results of the Review

    The Department intends to publish in the Federal Register a notice of the preliminary results of the antidumping duty changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. The Department will issue its final results of the changed circumstances review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). At the preliminary result of this review, if warranted based on the Department's analysis, we may instruct CBP as to the appropriate cash deposit rate.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).

    Dated: November 28, 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.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26071 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.

    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before December 26, 2017. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.

    Docket Number: 17-014. Applicant: Fermi Research Alliance, 2000 East Wilson Street, Batavia, IL 60510. Instrument: ICARUS T600 Detector. Manufacturer: The European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to study the rate at which muon neutrinos, a type of elementary particle, change flavor to electron neutrinos as they travel the distance between three LArTPC detectors. This is the only instrument that meets the requirements for position and time resolution of particle trajectories. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: July 12, 2017.

    Docket Number: 17-015. Applicant: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 801 Leroy Place, Socorro, NM 87801. Instrument: Unit Telescope Enclosure #1 (UTE1). Manufacturer: European Industrial Engineering (EIE) Group, Italy. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to study star and planet formation, active galactic nuclei and stellar accretion and mass loss. Unique features of the instrument include access to all astronomical objects above 30 degrees in elevation, with an inner axis rotation angle between +40 degrees and −50 degrees, as well as thermal stability and protection from shock load and vibration. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: July 24, 2017.

    Docket Number: 17-016. Applicant: Yale University, 333 Cedar Street, SHM B323, New Haven, CT 06520. Instrument: Mosquito crystal robot. Manufacturer: TTP Labtech, United Kingdom. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to obtain crystals of the biological macromolecule with and without its binding partner(s). Unique features of the instrument include disposable tips, which are essential to avoid cross contamination. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: July 25, 2017.

    Docket Number: 17-018. Applicant: Brookhaven National Laboratory, P.O. Box 5000, Upton, NY 11973. Instrument: Solid State Klystron Modulator. Manufacturer: Scandinova Systems AB, Sweden. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to study the magnetization, structure and conductivity of various organic and inorganic specimens such as proteins, ferrite, and superconducting materials. This is the only instrument with specific electrical socket to connect to the klystron, a solenoid magnet with magnetic field contours specific to the Model E37302A. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: August 16, 2017.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Gregory W. Campbell, Director, Subsidies Enforcement, Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26067 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Yale School of Medicine; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.

    Docket Number: 15-061. Applicant: Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510. Instrument: SuperK Extreme EXR-20 white light laser. Manufacturer: NKT Photonics, Denmark. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 71702, October 18, 2016. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The instrument will be used as an excitation source for the study of intracellular processes and structures at super resolution. The experiments require a high power pulsed excitation source at a wavelength of 590 nm, and minimal after pulse tail and sub 100 ps pulse width.

    Docket Number: 17-009. Applicant: UChicago Argonne, Lemont, IL 60439-4873. Instrument: Electron Beams Position Processors. Manufacturer: Instrumentation Technologies, Slovenia. Intended Use: See notice at 82 FR 34924, July 27, 2017. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The instrument will be used to measure the precise position of the Advanced Photon Source (APS) storage ring electron beam with resolution of 50 to 100 nanometers from DC to 1000 kHz. It can also turn by turn position to the 1 micrometer level for fast 271 kHz (the turn by turn rate) beam position measurement, without which the required vertical beam stability of 400 = nm will not be met. The instrument also has a daisy chain capability to accumulate and send all data from several bpm processors to the fast-orbit-feedback processor, without which data cannot be sent at 32 bpms to the local fast-orbit feedback processors at the same time.

    Docket Number: 17-010. Applicant: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801. Instrument: Delay Line Trolley #2 (DLT2). Manufacturer: University of Cambridge/Cavendish Lab, United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 82 FR 34924, July 27, 201. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The instrument will be flexure-mounted and voice-coil actuated on a motorized wheeled carriage inside each delay line pipe of the Magdalena Ridge Observatory Interferometer. The instrument's unique specifications include a wavelength of operation that covers both the visible and near infrared, between 600 nm and 2400 nm, and a limiting group-delay tracking limiting magnitude of H = 14 to allow observations of extragalactic targets while tracking on the science object rather than a nearby reference star.

    Docket Number: 17-011. Applicant: William Marsh Rice University, Houston, TX 77005. Instrument: 3D Laser Lithography System. Manufacturer: Nanoscribe GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 82 FR 34924, July 27, 2017. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The instrument will be used to prepare materials for investigations of the mechanical, optical, electronic, and thermal properties of substrates for cell culture growth to better understand cancer propagation and tumors, mechanical trusses with nanoscale structure to create and study light, strong composite materials and metal structures to understand and control optical properties of materials in new ways. The distinctive feature of the instrument is its computer control integrated with both sample-stage motion in three dimensions with nano-resolution, and longer-distance scanning mirror technology to cover large (hundreds of microns) distances quickly.

    Docket Number: 17-012. Applicant: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720. Instrument: Custom undulator magnetic system mfg'd. to LBNL spec., for an accelerator research facility: (1) 1st article & (21) production units. Manufacturer: Vacuumschemelze GmbH & Co., KG, Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 82 FR 34924-25, July 27, 2017. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The instrument will be used as a core component of a free-electron-laser which produces x-rays for scientific discovery. To reach sufficiently high magnetic field values (1.3 Tesla) the instrument requires magnets with maximum field energy and poles with the highest saturation fields.

    Docket Number: 17-013. Applicant: William Marsh Rice University, Houston, TX 77005. Instrument: Professional Lab-Device electrospraying/electrospinning Unit V2.0. Manufacturer: Yflow Nanotechnology Solutions, Spain. Intended Use: See notice at 82 FR 34924-25, July 25, 2017. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The instrument will be used to prepare samples and materials for experiments. The electrospinning and electrospraying capabilities of this instrument will allow studies of the mechanical, biodegradation, optical, architectural, drug elution, biocompatibility, and cell metabolism among other such properties as materials for basic science and engineering research. The instrument is unique in its capabilities to control climate, jet diameter, micro-droplet production, fibered core-shell capsule production, core-shell capsules, and co/multi-axial designs.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Gregory W. Campbell, Director, Subsidies Enforcement, Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26066 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-073, C-570-074] Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value and Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Kearney, at (202) 482-0167, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, or Vicki Flynn, at (202) 482-1756, Office of Policy, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Initiation

    On the basis of information available to the Department of Commerce (the Department), we are initiating an antidumping duty (AD) investigation, under section 732(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to determine whether common alloy aluminum sheet (common alloy sheet) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act. We are also initiating a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, under section 702(a) of the Act, to determine whether the Government of the PRC is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) with respect to imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC.

    We have evidence indicating that the United States price of common alloy sheet from the PRC may be less than the normal value of such or similar merchandise and that imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC may be benefitting from countervailable subsidies. We also have evidence that imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC may be materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing common alloy sheet in the United States.

    U.S. law provides two mechanisms for the initiation of AD and CVD investigations. Normally, AD and/or CVD investigations are initiated under sections 702(b) and 732(b) of the Act, which specify that AD and/or CVD proceedings “shall be initiated whenever an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section 771(9) files a petition with the administering authority, on behalf of an industry, which alleges the elements necessary for the imposition of the duty imposed by {section 701(a) (for CVD) or 731 (for AD)}, and which is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting those allegations.” Investigations may also be initiated under sections 702(a) and 732(a) of the Act, which specify that AD and/or CVD investigations “shall be initiated whenever the administering authority determines, from information available to it, that a formal investigation is warranted into the question of whether the elements necessary for the imposition of a duty under {section 701 (CVD) or 731 (AD)} exist.” Although the Department has rarely invoked this statutory authority, the Department intends to make use of all the tools available under U.S. unfair trade laws, where such action is warranted under the law, to ensure potential unfair trade practices are addressed. To that end, self-initiation of certain AD and CVD cases can address situations where industries are faced with potentially dumped and/or subsidized imports and where the Department received comprehensive detailed information. Although the Department expects that future investigations will normally proceed based on petitions filed by or on behalf of the industry, the Department will take action under Sections 702(a) and 732(a), where warranted, to facilitate the application of the appropriate trade remedy for U.S. industries.

    In this instance, we have information warranting an investigation into whether (1) the United States price of common alloy sheet from the PRC may be less than the normal value of such or similar merchandise, (2) imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC may be benefitting from countervailable subsidies, and (3) imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC may be materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing common alloy sheet in the United States. Imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC into the United States have been significant since 2005 and have increased rapidly in the last three years.1 Furthermore, in light of the systemic and significant over-capacity in the Chinese aluminum industry, which has been extensively documented, including in a recent International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation conducted under section 332(g) of the Act,2 the U.S. industry is faced with the potential for even further increases in exports from the PRC. In light of the above, among other considerations, the Department is self-initiating AD and CVD investigations of imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC as provided for under sections 702(a) and 732(a) of the Act.

    1 Department Memoranda: Supporting Memorandum for the Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China (AD Initiation Memo), at Exhibit 1A, at Attachment 9, and Supporting Memorandum for the Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China (CVD Initiation Memo), at Exhibit 1A, at Attachment 9. These memoranda are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    2See Aluminum: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Inv. No. 332-557, USITC Pub. 4703 (June 2017), at 39, 68, 161, 241, and 465.

    Period of Investigation

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b), the proposed period of investigation (POI) for the CVD investigation is January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 while the proposed POI for the AD investigation is April 1, 2017 through September 30, 2017.

    Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is common alloy sheet from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix to this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,3 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on December 18, 2017. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 28, 2017.

    3See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must also be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS.4 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    4See 19 CFR 351.303 (describing general filing requirements); see also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) and Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of common alloy sheet to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they believe are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe common alloy sheet, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 18, 2017. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 28, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the less-than-fair-value investigation.

    Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to the CVD investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Evidence of Material Injury, Threat of Material Injury, and Causation

    The Department has evidence indicating that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product 5 may be materially injured, or may be threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of the subject merchandise that may be benefitting from countervailable subsidies and may be sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.6

    5 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see AD Initiation Memo and CVD Initiation Memo, at “Definition of Domestic Industry.”

    6See AD Initiation Memo and CVD Initiation Memo, at “Negligibility.”

    Information considered by the Department indicates that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; decreasing U.S. shipment and production trends, as well as low capacity utilization rates; increasing volumes of imports from the PRC; plant and facility closures; and deterioration in financial performance. In addition, the information indicates a threat of material injury by reason of the imports from the PRC based on the vulnerability of the domestic industry to material injury; the rapid increase in the volume and market penetration of subject imports; continued underselling and price suppression or depression; countervailable subsidies received by common alloy sheet producers in the PRC; and significant unused capacity available to PRC producers of common alloy sheet to increase production for exportation.7

    7See AD Initiation Memo; see also CVD Initiation Memo.

    Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the evidence of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate an AD investigation of imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Memo.

    Export Price

    The Department calculated two export prices (EP) based on (1) the average unit value (AUV) of combined imports of common alloy sheet under the relevant Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings for this product (7060.11.3060, 7060.11.6000, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, 7606.92.6080) from the PRC during the POI; and (2) the AUV of imports of common alloy sheet under HTSUS subheading 7606.12.3090 from the PRC during the POI, which accounted for over 90 percent of total imports of subject merchandise. The Department deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and unrebated Value-Added Tax (VAT) to obtain ex-factory prices, in accordance with our normal practice for calculating EPs.8

    8See AD Initiation Memo, at “U.S. Price.”

    Normal Value

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) country.9 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the Department. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of the initiation of this AD investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    9See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017) and accompanying decision memorandum, China's Status as a Non-Market Economy.

    South Africa is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information pertaining to South Africa is available to value the FOPs.10 Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

    10See AD Initiation Memo at 3-7 (citing Department Memorandum: “Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Investigation on Cast Soil Iron Pipe Fittings (CSIPF) from the People's Republic of China (China),” dated November 7, 2017); see also Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 81 FR 89897 (December 13, 2016) (Potassium Permanganate from the PRC Preliminary Decision) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM) (unchanged in Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015, 82 FR 28044 (June 20, 2017) (Potassium Permanganate from the PRC)) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM)).

    Factors of Production

    We based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on the consumption rates of certain producers of common alloy sheet in the United States.11 The production process for common alloy sheet is similar regardless of whether the product is produced in the United States or in the PRC.12 We valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from South Africa, as discussed below.13

    11See AD Initiation Memo.

    12Id.

    13Id.

    Valuation of Raw Materials

    We valued the FOPs for raw materials using public import data for South Africa obtained from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the POI.14 We excluded all import data from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country.15

    14See AD Initiation Memo; see also Potassium Permanganate from the PRC Preliminary Decision and accompanying PDM at 14 (unchanged in Potassium Permanganate from the PRC).

    15See AD Initiation Memo at 4-7.

    Valuation of Energy

    We valued natural gas using the AUV of imports of liquid natural gas into South Africa.16 We valued electricity using electricity rates reported by Eskom, South Africa's electricity public utility.17

    16Id.

    17Id., at 6; see also Potassium Permanganate from the PRC Preliminary Decision and accompanying PDM at 14 (unchanged in Potassium Permanganate from the PRC).

    Valuation of Labor

    We valued labor using labor data published by Statistics South Africa (SSA), the national statistics service of South Africa.18 SSA is the official South African source for government employment and earnings data.19

    18See AD Initiation Memo.

    19Id.

    Valuation of Packing Materials

    We determined the FOPs for packing materials based on the experience of U.S. producers of common alloy sheet in packing their own products.20 We valued the packing materials based on South African import values.21 We valued labor expenses for packing based on the hourly rates derived from the aforementioned labor data from the SSA.22

    20Id.

    21Id.; see also Potassium Permanganate from the PRC Preliminary Decision and accompanying PDM at 14 (unchanged in Potassium Permanganate from the PRC).

    22See AD Initiation Memo.

    Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit

    We calculated ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses based on the 2016 consolidated financial statements of Hulamin Ltd. (Hulamin), a South African producer of common alloy sheet.23 We calculated a profit rate for Hulamin by dividing its operating profit before taxes by the sum of cost of sales and SG&A expenses. We multiplied that rate by the total cost of production to obtain a profit value. The resulting profit value was added to the cost of production value to arrive at total cost of production plus profit for the product.24

    23Id.; see also Potassium Permanganate from the PRC Preliminary Decision and accompanying PDM at 15-16 (unchanged in Potassium Permanganate from the PRC).

    24See AD Initiation Memo, at 7.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data obtained by the Department, there is reason to believe that imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for common alloy sheet from the PRC are 56.54 percent and 59.72 percent.25

    25Id., at “Estimated Margins.”

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Section 732(a) of the Act states that the Department shall initiate an antidumping duty investigation whenever it determines, from information available to it, that a formal investigation is warranted into the question of whether the elements necessary for the imposition of a duty under section 731 exists. Pursuant to section 732(a) of the Act, on the basis of information available to the Department, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we intend to make our preliminary AD determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection for AD Investigation

    In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to known producers/exporters of merchandise subject to the investigation and, if necessary, base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    Producers/exporters of common alloy sheet from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement & Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on December 13, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME AD investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.26 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the PRC AD investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.27 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that companies from the PRC submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V response will not receive separate rate consideration.

    26See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation Involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

    27 Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that “the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,” this deadline is now 30 days.

    Use of Combination Rates

    In an NME AD investigation, the Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in that investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

    {W}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.28

    28See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation Involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

    Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    Section 702(a) of the Act states that the Department shall initiate a CVD investigation whenever it determines that a formal investigation is warranted into the question of whether the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act exist based on information available to the Department.

    On the basis of information available to the Department, producers/exporters of common alloy sheet in the PRC may benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the Government of the PRC. Pursuant to section 702(a) of the Act, on the basis of information available to the Department, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of common alloy sheet from the PRC receive countervailable subsidies from the Government of the PRC. Based on information available to the Department, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 26 programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see CVD Initiation Memo.

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary CVD determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection in CVD Investigation

    Following standard practice in CVD investigations, in the event the Department determines that the number of producers/exporters of common alloy sheet in the PRC is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, where appropriate, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of common alloy sheet during the POI under the appropriate HTSUS subheadings listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix. We intend to release the CBP data under APO to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of this initiation. Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this investigation. The Department will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo/.

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. If respondent selection is appropriate, we intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by sections 702(d) and 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the ITC receives notice from the Department that an investigation has been initiated, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of common alloy sheet from the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.29 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigations being terminated; 30 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    29See sections 793(a) and 733(a) of the Act.

    30Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 31 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.32 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    31See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    32See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.33 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 34 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    33See section 782(b) of the Act.

    34See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008).

    Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.35 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.36 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD and CVD investigations.37

    35See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    36See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).

    37Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702(a), 732(a), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.201(b).

    Dated: November 28, 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 is aluminum common alloy sheet (common alloy sheet), which is a flat-rolled aluminum product having a thickness of 6.3 mm or less, but greater than 0.2 mm, in coils or cut-to-length, regardless of width. Common alloy sheet within the scope of these investigations includes both not clad aluminum sheet, as well as multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet. With respect to not clad aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet is manufactured from a 1XXX-, 3XXX-, or 5XXX-series alloy as designated by the Aluminum Association. With respect to multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet is produced from a 3XXX-series core, to which cladding layers are applied to either one or both sides of the core.

    Common alloy sheet may be made to ASTM specification B209-14, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all common alloy sheet meeting the scope description is included in the scope. Subject merchandise includes common alloy sheet that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the common alloy sheet.

    Excluded from the scope of these investigations is aluminum can stock, which is suitable for use in the manufacture of aluminum beverage cans, lids of such cans, or tabs used to open such cans. Aluminum can stock is produced to gauges that range from 0.200 mm to 0.292 mm, and has an H-19, H-41, H-48, or H-391 temper. In addition, aluminum can stock has a lubricant applied to the flat surfaces of the can stock to facilitate its movement through machines used in the manufacture of beverage cans. Aluminum can stock is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7606.12.3045 and 7606.12.3055.

    Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for the above.

    Common alloy sheet is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of these investigations may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3030, 7606.12.3030, 7606.91.3060, 7606.91.6040, 7606.92.3060, 7606.92.6040, 7607.11.9090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-26068 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (the Department) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of a review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to a review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete a Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of a proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after December 2017, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

    Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of December 2017,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in December for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings BRAZIL: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings A-351-602 12/1/16-11/30/17 CHILE: Certain Preserved Mushrooms A-337-804 12/1/16-11/30/17 GERMANY: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel A-428-843 12/1/16-11/30/17 INDIA: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 A-533-838 12/1/16-11/30/17 Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products A-533-820 12/1/16-11/30/17 Commodity Matchbooks A-533-848 12/1/16-11/30/17 Stainless Steel Wire Rod A-533-808 12/1/16-11/30/17 INDONESIA: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products A-560-812 12/1/16-11/30/17 JAPAN: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand A-588-068 12/1/16-11/30/17 Non-Oriented Electrical Steel A-588-857 12/1/16-11/30/17 Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe A-588-857 12/1/16-11/30/17 OMAN: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe A-523-812 6/8/16-12/4/16
  • 12/16/16-11/30/17
  • PAKISTAN: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe A-553-903 6/8/16-11/30/17 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel A-580-872 12/1/16-11/30/17 Welded Astm A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe A-580-810 12/1/16-11/30/17 Uncovered Innersprings Units A-580-821 12/1/16-11/30/17 Welded Line Pipe A-580-876 12/1/16-11/30/17 RUSSIA: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products A-821-809 12/1/16-11/30/17 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM: Uncovered Innerspring Units A-552-803 12/1/16-11/30/17 SWEDEN: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel A-401-809 12/1/16-11/30/17 TAIWAN: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings A-583-605 12/1/16-11/30/17 Non-Oriented Electrical Steel A-583-851 12/1/16-11/30/17 Steel Wire Garment Hangers A-583-849 12/1/16-11/30/17 Welded Astm A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe A-583-815 12/1/16-11/30/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 A-570-892 12/1/16-11/30/17 Cased Pencils A-570-827 12/1/16-11/30/17 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules A-570-979 12/1/16-11/30/17 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof A-570-891 12/1/16-11/30/17 Honey A-570-863 12/1/16-11/30/17 Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings A-570-881 12/1/16-11/30/17 Melamine A-570-020 12/1/16-11/30/17 Multilayered Wood Flooring A-570-970 12/1/16-11/30/17 Non-Oriented Electrical Steel A-570-996 12/1/16-11/30/17 Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware A-570-020 12/1/16-11/30/17 Silicomanganese A-570-828 12/1/16-11/30/17 TURKEY: Welded Line Pipe A-489-822 12/1/16-11/30/17 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe A-520-807 6/8/16-11/30/17 Countervailing Duty Proceedings CANADA: Supercalendered Paper C-122-854 1/1/16-12/31/16 INDIA: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 C-533-839 1/1/16-12/31/16 Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products C-533-821 1/1/16-12/31/16 Commodity Matchbooks C-533-849 1/1/16-12/31/16 INDONESIA: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products C-560-813 1/1/16-12/31/16 TAIWAN: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel C-583-852 1/1/16-12/31/16 THAILAND: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products C-549-818 1/1/16-12/31/16 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules C-570-980 1/1/16-12/31/16 Melamine C-570-021 1/1/16-12/31/16 Non-Oriented Electrical Steel C-570-997 1/1/16-12/31/16 Multilayered Wood Flooring C-570-971 1/1/16-12/31/16 TURKEY: Welded Line Pipe C-489-823 1/1/16-12/31/16 Suspension Agreements MEXICO: Sugar A-201-845 12/1/16-11/30/17 Sugar C-201-846 1/1/17-12/30/17

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    The Department no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.3 Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.4 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity).

    3See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov. 5 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    5See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of December 2017. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of December 2017, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: November 28, 2017. James Maeder, Senior Director, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26070 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-560-826] Monosodium Glutamate From Indonesia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from Indonesia. The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016. The review covers a single mandatory respondent, PT Cheil Jedang Indonesia (CJI). The Department preliminarily determines that the respondent has not made sales of subject merchandise below normal value (NV). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 4, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caitlin Monks or Joseph Traw, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2670 or (202) 482-6079, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 13, 2017, the Department initiated this administrative review on MSG from Indonesia covering one company, CJI. The events that have occurred between initiation and these preliminary results are discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

    1See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Monosodium Glutamate from Indonesia, 2015-2016,” dated November 27, 2017 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this Federal Register notice.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is monosodium glutamate (MSG), whether or not blended or in solution with other products. The product is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2922.42.10.00. Merchandise covered by this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2922.42.50.00, 2103.90.72.00, 2103.90.74.00, 2103.90.78.00, 2103.90.80.00, and 2103.90.90.91. These tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written product description, available in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, remains dispositive.2

    2 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 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 on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we calculated a zero percent dumping margin for CJI for the period November 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to the parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.3 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), the Department will issue a case brief schedule at a later date in the proceeding, notifying interested parties of the deadlines for submitting case and rebuttal briefs. When the case brief schedule is issued, parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.4 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.5 In order to be properly filed, ACCESS must successfully receive an electronically-filed document in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

    3See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    5See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.6 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    6See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If CJI's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. Where the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except, if the rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters is 6.19 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.7 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    7See Monosodium Glutamate from the Republic of Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 79 FR 58329 (September 29, 2014).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 27, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy performing the duties of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Comparisons to Normal Value V. Product Comparisons VI. Date of Sale VII. Constructed Export Price VIII. Normal Value IX. Currency Conversion X. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-26063 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Region Gear Identification Requirements AGENCY:

    National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Keeley Kent, (206) 526-4655 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The success of fisheries management programs depends significantly on regulatory compliance. The requirements that fishing gear be marked are essential to facilitate enforcement. The ability to link fishing gear to the vessel owner or operator is crucial to enforcement of regulations issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The marking of fishing gear is also valuable in actions concerning damage, loss, and civil proceedings. The regulations specify that fishing gear must be marked with the vessel's official number, Federal permit or tag number, or some other specified form of identification. The regulations further specify how the gear is to be marked (e.g., location and color). Law enforcement personnel rely on gear marking information to assure compliance with fisheries management regulations. Gear that is not properly identified is confiscated. Gear violations are more readily prosecuted when the gear is marked, and this allows for more cost-effective enforcement. Gear marking helps ensure that a vessel harvests fish only from its own traps/pots/other gear are not illegally placed. Cooperating fishermen also use the gear marking numbers to report suspicious or non-compliant activities that they observe, and to report placement or occurrence of gear in unauthorized areas. The identifying number on fishing gear is used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and other marine agencies in issuing regulations, prosecutions, and other enforcement actions necessary to support sustainable fisheries behaviors as intended in regulations. Regulation-compliant fishermen ultimately benefit from these requirements, as unauthorized and illegal fishing is deterred and more burdensome regulations are avoided.

    II. Method of Collection

    The physical marking of fishing buoys is done by fishermen in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery) according to regulation.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0352.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,125.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 574 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $11,351.60 for materials.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost and whether the information shall have practical utility) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 29, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26023 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P.
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Region Vessel Identification Requirements AGENCY:

    National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Keeley Kent, (206) 526-4655 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The success of fisheries management programs depends significantly on regulatory compliance. The vessel identification requirement is essential to facilitate enforcement. The ability to link fishing (or other activity) to the vessel owner or operator is crucial to enforcement of regulations issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. A vessel's official number is required to be displayed on the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on a weather deck. It identifies each vessel and should be visible at distances at sea and in the air. Law enforcement personnel rely on vessel marking information to assure compliance with fisheries management regulations. Vessels that qualify for particular fisheries are also readily identified, and this allows for more cost-effective enforcement. Cooperating fishermen also use the vessel numbers to report suspicious or non-compliant activities that they observe in unauthorized areas. The identifying number on fishing vessels is used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and other marine agencies in issuing regulations, prosecutions, and other enforcement actions necessary to support sustainable fisheries behaviors as intended in regulations. Regulation-compliant fishermen ultimately benefit from these requirements, as unauthorized and illegal fishing is deterred and more burdensome regulations are avoided.

    II. Method of Collection

    Fishing vessel owners physically mark vessels with identification numbers in three locations per vessel.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0355.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,125.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes per marking.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 69 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $19,106 for materials.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost and whether the information shall have practical utility) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 29, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26024 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Saltwater Angler Registry AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Gordon Colvin (240) 357-4524 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved collection.

    The National Saltwater Angler Registry Program (Registry Program) was established to implement recommendations included in the review of national saltwater angling data collection programs conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) in 2005/2006, and the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act, codified at Section 401(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which require the Secretary of Commerce to commence improvements to recreational fisheries surveys, including establishing a national saltwater angler and for-hire vessel registry, by January 1, 2009. A final rule that includes regulatory measures to implement the Registry Program (RIN 0648-AW10) was adopted and codified in 50 CFR 600, Subpart P.

    The Registry Program collects identification and contact information from those anglers and for-hire vessels who are involved in recreational fishing in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone or for anadromous fish in any waters, unless the anglers or vessels are exempted from the registration requirement. Data collected includes: For anglers: Name, address, date of birth, telephone contact information and region(s) of the country in which they fish; for for-hire vessels: Owner and operator name, address, date of birth, telephone contact information, vessel name and registration/documentation number and home port or primary operating area. This information is compiled into a national and/or series of regional registries that is being used to support surveys of recreational anglers and for-hire vessels to develop estimates of recreational angling effort.

    II. Method of Collection

    Persons may register on line at a NOAA-maintained Web site. Registration cards, valid for one year from the date of issuance, are mailed to registrants.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0578.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,724.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 137.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $78,996 in registration fees.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 29, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26025 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0062, Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Transactions; Correction AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission published a document in the Federal Register of November 28, 2017, concerning a request for comments on a Paperwork Reduction Act Notice related to off-exchange foreign currency transactions. The document contained a reference to an incorrect Office of Management and Budget control number. This document corrects that error.

    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.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 28, 2017, FR Doc. 2017-25698, on page 56221, in the second column, correct the second sentence of the ADDRESSES caption to read:

    Please identify the comments by OMB Control No. 3038-0062.

    Dated: November 29, 2017. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26026 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Performance Review Board Membership AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The original notice of the list of participants for the Performance Review Board Membership published in the Federal Register on Friday, November 3, 2017. There is an additional participant to add to the list: MG Michael Wehr, Deputy Chief of Engineers/Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.

    DATES:

    The term began on November 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara Smith, Civilian Senior Leader Management Office, 111 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0111, (703) 693-1126.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    None.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26050 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-22] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107, [email protected] or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217, [email protected]; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-22 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: November 28, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN04DE17.000 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-22 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Qatar

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $0 billion Other $1.1 billion Total $1.1 billion

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): None

    Non-MDE:

    Design and construction services, new parking/loading ramps, hot cargo pads, taxiways, hangars, back shops, alert facilities, weapons storage areas, hardened shelters, squadron operations facilities, maintenance facilities, training facilities, information technology support and cyber facilities, force protection support facilities, squadron operations facilities, other F-15QA related support structures, construction/facilities/design services, cybersecurity services, mission critical computer resources, support services, force protection services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (X7-D-QAL)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    Air Force: QA-D-SAC, QA-D-TAH, QA-D-YAB Navy: QA-P-AAG, QA-P-AAE, QA-P-AAH, QA-P-LAC, QA-P-LAE

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered. or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: November 1, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Qatar—F-15QA Construction, Cybersecurity, and Force Protection Infrastructure

    The Government of Qatar has requested support of its F-15QA multi-role fighter aircraft program to include design and construction services, new parking/loading ramps, hot cargo pads, taxiways, hangars, back shops, alert facilities, weapons storage areas, hardened shelters, squadron operations facilities, maintenance facilities, training facilities, information technology support and cyber facilities, force protection support facilities, squadron operations facilities, other F-15QA related support structures, construction/facilities/design services, cybersecurity services, mission critical computer resources, support services, force protection services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $1.1 billion.

    This proposed sale supports the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States. Qatar is an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Persian Gulf region. Our mutual defense interests anchor our relationship and the Qatar Emiri Air Force (QEAF) plays a predominant role in Qatar's defense.

    The proposed sale improves Qatar's capability to operate and sustain its F-15QA aircraft. A robust construction, cybersecurity, and force protection infrastructure is vital to ensuring the QEAF partners can utilize the F-15QA aircraft to its full potential. Qatar will have no difficulty absorbing this support into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this construction, cybersecurity, and force protection infrastructure will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor for construction, cybersecurity, and force protection infrastructure will be determined through competition. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

    Implementation of the construction, cybersecurity, and force protection aspects of this notification include the establishment of a construction office in Doha with as many as ten (10) U.S. Government civilians which will adjust in size as case workload varies. Anticipated contractor footprint for this effort is approximately fifteen (15) to fifty (50) personnel, which may vary based on phases of construction and establishment of required services.

    There will be no adverse impact to U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25974 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-47] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107, [email protected] or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217, [email protected]; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-47 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: November 28, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN04DE17.001 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-47 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of the Czech Republic

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $335.9 million Other $239.1 million Total $575.0 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Twelve (12) UH-1Y Utility Helicopters Twenty-five (25) T-700 GE 401C Engines (twenty-four (24) installed, one (1) spare) Thirteen (13) Honeywell Embedded Global Positioning Systems (GPS)/Inertial Navigation System (INS) (EGI) (twelve (12) installed, one (1) spare) Twelve (12) 7.62mm M240 Machine Guns

    Non-MDE includes:

    Brite Star II FLIR system, Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) (includes the AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning and Laser Detection System, AN/ALE-47 Counter Measure Dispensing System (CMDS) and the AN/APR-39 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR)), Joint Mission Planning Systems, Helmet Mounted Displays, communication equipment, small caliber gun systems including GAU-17A and GAU-21, electronic warfare systems, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Mode 4/5 transponder, support equipment, spare engine containers, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services

    Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: October 11, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Czech Republic—UH-1Y Utility Helicopters

    The Government of the Czech Republic has requested the possible sale of twelve (12) UH-1Y utility helicopters, twenty-five (25) T-700 GE 401C engines (twenty-four (24) installed, one (1) spare), thirteen (13) Honeywell Embedded GPS/INS (EGI) (twelve (12) installed, one (1) spare), and twelve (12) 7.62mm M240 Machine Guns. This request also includes Brite Star II FLIR system, Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) (includes the AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning and Laser Detection System, AN/ALE-47 Counter Measure Dispensing System (CMDS) and the AN/APR-39 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR)), Joint Mission Planning Systems, Helmet Mounted Displays, communication equipment, small caliber gun systems including GAU-17A and GAU-21, electronic warfare systems, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Mode 4/5 transponder, support equipment, spare engine containers, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $575 million.

    This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO partner that is an important force for ensuring peace and stability in Europe. The proposed sale will support the Czech Republic's needs for its own self-defense and support NATO defense goals.

    The Czech Republic intends to use these helicopters to modernize its armed forces and strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. This will contribute to the Czech Republic's military goal of updating its capabilities while further enhancing interoperability with the United States and other NATO allies. The Czech Republic will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.

    This proposed sale of equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractors will be Bell Helicopter, Textron, Fort Worth, Texas; and General Electric Company, Lynn, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements proposed in conjunction with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips by U.S. Government and contractor representatives to participate in program and technical reviews plus training and maintenance support in country, on a temporary basis, for a period of twenty-four (24) months. It will also require three (3) Contractor Engineering Technical Service (CETS) representatives to reside in country for a period of two (2) years to support this program.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-47 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The following components and technical documentation for the program are classified as listed below:

    a. The UH-1Y-model has an Integrated Avionics System (IAS) which includes two (2) mission computers and an automatic flight control system. Each crew station has two (2) 8×6-inch multifunction liquid crystal displays (LCD) and one (1) 4.2×4.2-inch dual function LCD display. The communications suite will have COMSEC ARC-210 Ultra High Frequency Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) radios with associated communications equipment. The navigation suite includes Honeywell Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS) Inertial Navigation System (INS) (EGI) w/Precise Positioning Service (PPS), a digital map system, a low-airspeed air data subsystem, and an AN/APX-123/A(V) IFF Transponder.

    b. The crew is equipped with the Optimized Top Owl (OTO) helmet-mounted sight and display system. The OTO has a Day Display Module (DDM) and a Night Display Module (NDM). The UH-1Y has survivability equipment including the AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning and Laser Detection System, AN/ALE-47 Counter Measure Dispensing System (CMDS) and the AN/APR-39 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) to cover countermeasure dispensers, radar warning, incoming/on-way missile warning and on fuselage laser-spot warning systems.

    c. The following performance data and technical characteristics are classified as follows for the UH-1Y Airframe: countermeasure capability—up to SECRET, counter-countermeasures capability—SECRET, vulnerability to countermeasures—SECRET, vulnerability to electromagnetic pulse from nuclear environmental effects—SECRET.

    2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness.

    3. The consequences of the loss of this technology to a technologically advanced or competent adversary could result in the compromise of equivalent systems, which in turn could reduce those weapons systems' effectiveness, or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that the Czech Republic can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale of the UH-1Y helicopter and associated weapons will further U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of the Czech Republic.

    [FR Doc. 2017-26006 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-57] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107, [email protected] or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217, [email protected]; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-57 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: November 28, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN04DE17.003 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-57 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Canada

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $130 million Other $10 million Total $140 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Up to thirty-two (32) AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) Up to eighteen (18) AMRAAM Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs) Up to four (4) AMRAAM Non-Development Item—Airborne Instrumentation Unit (NDI-AIU) Up to two (2) AMRAAM Instrumented Test Vehicles (ITV) Up to seven (7) spare AMRAAM guidance units Up to four (4) spare AMRAAM control sections

    Non-MDE:

    Included in the sale are containers; storage and preservation; transportation; aircrew and maintenance training; training aids and equipment, spares and repair parts; warranties; weapon system support and test equipment; publications and technical documentation; software development integration, and support; system integration and testing; U.S. Government and contractor engineering technical and logistics support; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (XX-D-YDG)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: CN-D-YAE for AIM-120 AMRAAMs; CN-D-QBU for in-service support for those AMRAAMs

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: Oct 30, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Canada—AIM-120D Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)

    The Government of Canada has requested a Letter of Offer and Acceptance for the procurement of up to thirty-two (32) AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), up to eighteen (18) AMRAAM Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); up to four (4) AMRAAM Non-Development Item—Airborne Instrumentation Unit (NDI-AIU); up to two (2) AMRAAM Instrumented Test Vehicles (ITV); up to seven (7) spare AMRAAM guidance units; up to four (4) spare AMRAAM control sections for use on their F/A-18 aircraft. Included in the sale are containers; storage and preservation; transportation; aircrew and maintenance training; training aids and equipment, spares and repair parts; warranties; weapon system support and test equipment; publications and technical documentation; software development, integration, and support; system integration and testing; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $140 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally which has been, and continues to be, a key democratic partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability. The missiles will be used on Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fighter aircraft.

    This proposed sale of defense articles and services is required to enable RCAF fighters to optimally fulfill both North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) and NATO missions and also meets the U.S. Northern Command's goals of combined air operations interoperability and standardization between Canadian and U.S. forces. The RCAF will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its inventory.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ. The Government of Canada has advised that it will negotiate offset agreements in conjunction with this sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Canada.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-57 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The AIM-120D Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) hardware, including the missile guidance section, is classified CONFIDENTIAL. State-of-the-art technology is used in the missile to provide it with unique beyond-visual-range capability. The increase in capability from the AIM-120C-7 to AIM-120D consists of a two-way data link, a more accurate navigation unit, improved High-Angle Off-Boresight (HOBS) capability, and enhanced aircraft-to-missile position handoff.

    2. AIM-120D features a target detection device with embedded electronic countermeasures, and electronics unit within the guidance section that performs all radar signal processing, mid-course and terminal guidance, flight control, target detection, and warhead burst point determination.

    3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that Canada can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary to further the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    5. All defense articles and services listed on this transmittal are authorized for release and export to Canada.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25978 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-59] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107, [email protected] or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217, [email protected]; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-59 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: November 28, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN04DE17.002 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-59 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Georgia

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $50 million Other $25 million Total $75 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Four-hundred ten (410) Javelin Missiles Seventy-two (72) Javelin Command Launch Units (CLUs) (includes two (2) Javelin Block 1 CLUs to be used as spares)

    Non-MDE:

    Also included are ten (10) Basic Skills Trainers (BST); up to seventy (70) simulated rounds; United States Government (USG) and contractor technical assistance, transportation, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Army

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: November 17, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    Policy Justification Georgia—Javelin Missile and Command Launch Units

    The Government of Georgia has requested to purchase four hundred and ten (410) Javelin Missiles, and seventy-two (72) Javelin Command Launch Units (CLUs) (includes two (2) Javelin Block 1 CLUs to be used as spares). Also included are ten (10) Basic Skills Trainers (BST); up to seventy (70) simulated rounds; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; transportation; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $75 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of Georgia. The Javelin system will provide Georgia with increased capacity to meet its national defense requirements. Georgia will have no difficulty absorbing this system into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractors will be Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin Joint Venture of Orlando, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona. However, these missiles are being provided from U.S. Army stock and the CLUs will be obtained from on-hand Special Defense Acquisition Fund (SDAF)-purchased stock. There are no known offset agreements proposed in conjunction with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of approximately one (1) U.S. Government and two (2) contractor representatives to Georgia.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-59 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The Javelin Weapon System is a medium-range, man portable, shoulder-launched, fire and forget, anti-tank system for infantry, scouts, and combat engineers. It may also be mounted on a variety of platforms including vehicles, aircraft and watercraft. The system weighs 49.5 pounds and has a maximum range in excess of 2,500 meters. They system is highly lethal against tanks and other systems with conventional and reactive armors. The system possesses a secondary capability against bunkers.

    2. Javelin's key technical feature is the use of fire-and-forget technology which allows the gunner to fire and immediately relocate or take cover. Additional special features are the top attack and/or direct fire modes, an advanced tandem warhead and imaging infrared seeker, target lock-on before launch, and soft launch from enclosures or covered fighting positions. The Javelin missile also has a minimum smoke motor thus decreasing its detection on the battlefield.

    3. The Javelin Weapon System is comprised of two major tactical components, which are a reusable Command Launch Unit (CLU) and a round contained in a disposable launch tube assembly. The CLU incorporates an integrated day-night sight that provides a target engagement capability in adverse weather and countermeasure environments. The CLU may also be used in a stand-alone mode for battlefield surveillance and target detection. The CLU's thermal sight is a second generation Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensor. To facilitate initial loading and subsequent updating of software, all on-board missile software is uploaded via the CLU after mating and prior to launch.

    4. The missile is autonomously guided to the target using an imaging infrared seeker and adaptive correlation tracking algorithms. This allows the gunner to take cover or reload and engage another target after firing a missile. The missile has an advanced tandem warhead and can be used in either the top attack or direct fire modes (for target undercover). An onboard flight computer guides the missile to the selected target.

    5. The Javelin Missile System hardware and the documentation are UNCLASSIFIED. The missile software which resides in the CLU is considered SENSITIVE. The sensitivity is primarily in the software programs which instruct the system how to operate in the presence of countermeasures. The overall hardware is also considered sensitive in that the infrared wavelengths could be useful in attempted countermeasure development.

    6. If a technologically advanced adversary obtains knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    7. A determination has been made that Georgia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary to further the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    8. All defense articles and services listed on this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Georgia.

    [FR Doc. 2017-25980 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-67] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107, [email protected] or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217, [email protected]; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-67 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: November 28, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN04DE17.004 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-67 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Poland

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 6.8 billion Other $ 3.7 billion Total $10.5 billion

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: This is phase one of a two-phase program for an Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS)—enabled Patriot Configuration-3+ with Modernized Sensors and Components consisting of:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Four (4) AN/MPQ-65 Radar Sets Four (4) Engagement Control Stations Four (4) Radar Interface Units (RIU) Modification Kits Sixteen (16) M903 Launching Stations adapted Eighteen (18) Launcher Integrated Network Kits (LINKs) (includes two (2) spares) Two hundred and eight (208) Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) Missiles Eleven (11) PAC-3 MSE Test Missiles IBCS Software Six (6) Current Operations—IBCS Engagement Operations Centers (EOCs) Six (6) Engagement Operations—IBCS EOCs Two (2) Future Operations—IBCS EOCs Fifteen (15) Integrated Fire Control Network (IFCN) Relays Four (4) Electrical Power Plants (EPP) III Five (5) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems/Low Volume Terminals (MIDS/LVTs)

    Non-MDE includes:

    Also included with this request are communications equipment, tools and test equipment, range and test programs, support equipment, prime movers, generators, publications and technical documentation, training equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training, Technical Assistance Field Team (TAFT), U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, Systems Integration and Checkout (SICO), field office support, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Army

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: November 14, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Poland—Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS)-enabled Patriot Configuration-3+ with Modernized Sensors and Components

    The Government of Poland has requested to purchase phase one of a two-phase program for an Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) enabled Patriot Configuration-3+ with Modernized Sensors and Components consisting of four (4) AN/MPQ-65 radar sets, four (4) engagement control stations, four (4) Radar Interface Units (RIU) modification kits, sixteen