Federal Register Vol. 82, No.234,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 234 (December 7, 2017)

Page Range57657-57818
FR Document

82_FR_234
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 57756 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 57664 - 18-Month Extension of Transition Period and Delay of Applicability Dates; Best Interest Contract Exemption (PTE 2016-01); Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (PTE 2016-02); Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 for Certain Transactions Involving Insurance Agents and Brokers, Pension Consultants, Insurance Companies, and Investment Company Principal Underwriters (PTE 84-24); CorrectionPDF
82 FR 57750 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Farm Credit Administration BoardPDF
82 FR 57786 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 57728 - Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality AwardPDF
82 FR 57664 - Wyoming Regulatory ProgramPDF
82 FR 57674 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay, Queens, NYPDF
82 FR 57789 - 2018 Railroad Experience Rating Proclamations, Monthly Compensation Base and Other DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57731 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; HBCU All Star Student ProgramPDF
82 FR 57811 - Certification Pursuant to Section 7045(A)(4)(B) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017PDF
82 FR 57812 - Certification Pursuant to Section 7045(a)(4)(B) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 (DIV. J, Pub. L. 115-31)PDF
82 FR 57814 - FCA US LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
82 FR 57751 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57685 - Special Conditions: Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 Helicopters; Installation of Garmin International, Inc., Autopilot SystemPDF
82 FR 57687 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopter; Mode AnnunciationPDF
82 FR 57688 - Wine Treating Materials and Related Regulations; Comment Period ExtensionPDF
82 FR 57657 - Expansion of the Outer Coast Plain Viticultural AreaPDF
82 FR 57659 - Establishment of the Petaluma Gap Viticultural Area and Modification of the North Coast Viticultural AreaPDF
82 FR 57813 - Vicksburg Southern Railroad, L.L.C.-Lease and Operation Exemption-Kansas City Southern Railway CompanyPDF
82 FR 57788 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 57726 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Spain: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
82 FR 57750 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Big River Steel, LLC, Osceola, ArkansasPDF
82 FR 57757 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 57709 - Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention InquiryPDF
82 FR 57751 - Notice of Meeting SchedulePDF
82 FR 57785 - Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meetings for the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory Council, ColoradoPDF
82 FR 57731 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
82 FR 57732 - Access Energy Solutions, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 57732 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 57733 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 57730 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21339PDF
82 FR 57785 - Notice of Public Meetings for the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council's Lands With Wilderness Characteristics SubcommitteePDF
82 FR 57717 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final ResultsPDF
82 FR 57731 - Request for Comments on the Draft Fiscal Year 2018 Through Fiscal Year 2022 Strategic PlanPDF
82 FR 57721 - Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
82 FR 57704 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57714 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final ResultsPDF
82 FR 57705 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
82 FR 57727 - Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
82 FR 57722 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Review, in Part, and Intent To Rescind the Review, in Part; 2015PDF
82 FR 57715 - Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 57705 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 98-Birmingham, Alabama, Authorization of Production Activity, Brose Tuscaloosa, Inc., (Automotive Seats, Drives and Door Frames), Vance, AlabamaPDF
82 FR 57718 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Rescission, and Final Rescission, in Part, of the 22nd Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Reviews; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 57703 - Malheur National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District and Umatilla National Forest, North Fork John Day Ranger District; Oregon; Ragged Ruby ProjectPDF
82 FR 57742 - Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program-Eastern Division-Rate Order No. WAPA-180PDF
82 FR 57734 - Loveland Area Projects-Rate Order No. WAPA-179PDF
82 FR 57730 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57814 - Medical Review Board Advisory Committee; Charter RenewalPDF
82 FR 57769 - Iowa; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57768 - Nebraska; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57770 - Nebraska; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57779 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57812 - Overseas Schools Advisory Council Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 57813 - Webinar Meeting of the Regional Energy Resource CouncilPDF
82 FR 57786 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collections; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57784 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of a Proposed Amendment to a Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Scrub-Jay, Manatee and Hardee Counties, FLPDF
82 FR 57758 - Draft-National Occupational Research Agenda for Traumatic Injury PreventionPDF
82 FR 57759 - Pediatric Rare Diseases-A Collaborative Approach for Drug Development Using Gaucher Disease as a Model; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 57760 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Safety SurveyPDF
82 FR 57729 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous FishPDF
82 FR 57758 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 57811 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business AffairsPDF
82 FR 57787 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
82 FR 57703 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
82 FR 57788 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 57789 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 57775 - Kansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57772 - Kansas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57808 - Regents Park Funds, LLC and Two Roads Shared TrustPDF
82 FR 57677 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Emissions Banking and Trading Programs for Area and Mobile SourcesPDF
82 FR 57775 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57778 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57767 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57768 - Alabama; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57756 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
82 FR 57774 - New York; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57774 - Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57771 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57768 - Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57772 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57762 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57770 - Kansas; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 57769 - Florida; Amendment No. 13 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57680 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
82 FR 57767 - California; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57770 - California; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 57762 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 57761 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 57762 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 57787 - OSC Annual SurveyPDF
82 FR 57799 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX PEARL Rules 517A, Aggregate Risk Manager for EEMs (“ARM-E”), and 517B, Aggregate Risk Manager for Market Makers (“ARM-M”)PDF
82 FR 57803 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to the Implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments RegulationPDF
82 FR 57791 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Enhance the Process for Submitting and Accepting ETF Creations and RedemptionsPDF
82 FR 57809 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Period for the Retail Price Improvement Program Until June 30, 2018PDF
82 FR 57790 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Creating an Electronic-Only Order TypePDF
82 FR 57816 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Student Beneficiary Report-REPS (Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors)PDF
82 FR 57817 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: REPS Annual Eligibility ReportPDF
82 FR 57817 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Certification of School Attendance-REPSPDF
82 FR 57684 - Television Broadcasting Services; Anchorage, AlaskaPDF
82 FR 57783 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Customer Profile Management System-IDENTity Verification Tool (CPMS-IVT)PDF
82 FR 57694 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation PlanPDF
82 FR 57677 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Amendment to Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone; WithdrawalPDF
82 FR 57689 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5PDF
82 FR 57699 - International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Revised 2018 Commercial Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; 2018 Catch LimitPDF
82 FR 57698 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Possible Effects of Court Decision on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Conterminous United StatesPDF

Issue

82 234 Thursday, December 7, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Viticultural Areas: Outer Coast Plain; Expansion, 57657-57659 2017-26414 Petaluma Gap and North Coast; Establishment and Modification, 57659-57664 2017-26410 PROPOSED RULES Wine Treating Materials and Related Regulations: Comment Period Extension, 57688-57689 2017-26416 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57757-57758 2017-26399 Draft National Occupational Research Agenda for Traumatic Injury Prevention, 57758 2017-26359 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57758-57759 2017-26353 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Arkansas Advisory Committee, 57703-57704 2017-26350 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY, 57674-57676 2017-26431 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57704-57705 2017-26385
Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Draft Fiscal Year 2018 through Fiscal Year 2022 Strategic Plan, 57731 2017-26387 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: HBCU All Star Student Program, 57731 2017-26429 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration RULES Best Interest Contract Exemptions: Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs, etc; 18-Month Extension of Transition Period and Delay of Applicability Dates, 57664 2017-26478 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

See

Western Area Power Administration

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Texas; Revisions to Emissions Banking and Trading Programs for Area and Mobile Sources, 57677-57679 2017-26342 Virginia; Amendment to Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone; Withdrawal, 57677 2017-26303 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 57694-57698 2017-26304 Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate Transport, 57689-57694 2017-26291 NOTICES Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program: Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Big River Steel, LLC, Osceola, AR, 57750 2017-26400 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 57750-57751 2017-26475 Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Meetings: Schedule, 57751 2017-26397 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Special Conditions: Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopters; Installation of Garmin International, Inc., Autopilot System, 57685-57687 2017-26420 Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopter; Mode Annunciation, 57687-57688 2017-26418 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Television Broadcasting Services: Anchorage, AK, 57684 2017-26312 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57751-57756 2017-26424 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 57756 2017-26516 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspensions of Community Eligibility, 57680-57684 2017-26328 NOTICES Emergency Declarations: Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 1, 57768 2017-26333 Flood Hazard Determinations, 57767-57768, 57771-57772 2017-26334 2017-26339 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 57762-57767, 57772-57774, 57779-57782 2017-26331 2017-26332 2017-26367 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 57775-57779 2017-26340 2017-26341 Major Disaster Declarations: California; Amendment No. 6, 57770 2017-26326 California; Amendment No. 7, 57767 2017-26327 Florida; Amendment No. 13, 57769 2017-26329 Iowa; Amendment No. 3, 57769 2017-26370 Kansas; Amendment No. 1, 57775 2017-26345 Kansas; Amendment No. 3, 57772 2017-26344 Nebraska; Amendment No. 3, 57768, 57770 2017-26368 2017-26369 Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 4, 57774 2017-26335 Major Disasters and Related Determinations: Alabama, 57768-57769 2017-26338 Kansas, 57770-57771 2017-26330 New York, 57774-57775 2017-26336 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 57732-57734 2017-26392 2017-26393 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Access Energy Solutions, LLC, 57732 2017-26394 Staff Attendances, 57731-57732 2017-26395 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 57756 2017-26337 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: Medical Review Board Advisory Committee, 57814 2017-26371 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Possible Effects of Court Decision on Grizzly Bear Recovery in Conterminous United States, 57698-57699 2017-25995 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Availability of Proposed Amendment to Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for Florida Scrub-Jay, Manatee and Hardee Counties, FL, 57784-57785 2017-26360 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Food Safety Survey, 57760-57761 2017-26356 Guidance: Pediatric Rare Diseases: Collaborative Approach for Drug Development Using Gaucher Disease as Model, 57759-57760 2017-26357 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Brose Tuscaloosa, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 98, Birmingham, AL, 57705 2017-26379 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Malheur National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District and Umatilla National Forest, North Fork John Day Ranger District; Oregon; Ragged Ruby Project, 57703 2017-26377 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 57721-57722 2017-26386 Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 57709-57714 2017-26398 Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, 57715-57717 2017-26380 Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, 57714-57715, 57717-57721 2017-26378 2017-26384 2017-26388 Initiations of Administrative Reviews, 57705-57709 2017-26383 Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 57722-57726 2017-26381 Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India, 57727-57728 2017-26382 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Spain, 57726-57727 2017-26401 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 57786 2017-26460 2017-26461 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Resource Advisory Council for Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory Council, Colorado, 57785 2017-26396 Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council's Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Subcommittee, 57785-57786 2017-26390 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57786-57787 2017-26361 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: FCA US, LLC, 57814-57816 2017-26425 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Board of Overseers of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, 57728-57729 2017-26455 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 57762 2017-26323 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 57761 2017-26324 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 57762 2017-26325 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries: Revised 2018 Commercial Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in Eastern Pacific Ocean; 2018 Catch Limit, 57699-57702 2017-26146 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Take of Anadromous Fish, 57729-57730 2017-26354 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 21339, 57730 2017-26391 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 57787 2017-26351 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 57730-57731 2017-26372 Office Special Office of the Special Counsel NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Survey, 57787-57788 2017-26322 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 57788 2017-26402 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 57789 2017-26347 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 57788 2017-26348 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES 2018 Railroad Experience Rating Proclamations, Monthly Compensation Base and Other Determinations, 57789-57790 2017-26430 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Regents Park Funds, LLC and Two Roads Shared Trust, 57808-57809 2017-26343 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe Exchange, Inc., 57790-57791 2017-26317 LCH SA, 57803-57808 2017-26320 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 57799-57803 2017-26321 Nasdaq BX, Inc., 57809-57811 2017-26318 National Securities Clearing Corp., 57791-57799 2017-26319 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, 57811 2017-26352 State Department State Department NOTICES Certifications Pursuant to Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 57811-57813 2017-26427 2017-26428 Meetings: Overseas Schools Advisory Council, 57812 2017-26366 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office RULES Wyoming Regulatory Program, 57664-57674 2017-26432 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Leases and Operation Exemptions: Vicksburg Southern Railroad, LLC from Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 57813 2017-26403 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Meetings: Regional Energy Resource Council, 57813-57814 2017-26365 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Customer Profile Management System-IDENTity Verification Tool, 57783-57784 2017-26311 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certification of School Attendance: Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors, 57817 2017-26313 Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors Annual Eligibility Report, 57817-57818 2017-26314 Student Beneficiary Report: Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors, 57816-57817 2017-26315 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Rate Orders: Loveland Area Projects, 57734-57742 2017-26375 Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, 57742-57750 2017-26376 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.

82 234 Thursday, December 7, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2016-0008; T.D. TTB-148; Re: Notice No. 162] RIN 1513-AC32 Expansion of the Outer Coast Plain Viticultural Area AGENCY:

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule; Treasury decision.

SUMMARY:

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is expanding the approximately 2.25 million-acre “Outer Coastal Plain” viticultural area of southeastern New Jersey by approximately 32,932 acres. The Outer Coastal Plain AVA includes all or portions of Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Monmouth, Ocean, and Salem counties. The established viticultural area and the expansion area are not located within any other established viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 8, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana Register, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone (202) 453-1039, ext. 022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

Definition

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Requirements

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Petitioners may use the same process to request changes involving established AVAs. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for modifying established AVAs. Petitions to expand an established AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the area within the proposed expansion area boundary is nationally or locally known by the name of the established AVA;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed expansion area;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed expansion area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed expansion area similar to the established AVA and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the established AVA boundary;

• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed expansion area, with the boundary of the proposed expansion area clearly drawn thereon; and

• A detailed narrative description of the proposed expansion area boundary based on USGS map markings.

Petition To Expand the Outer Coast Plain AVA

TTB received a petition from John and Jane Giunco, owners of 4JG's Orchards and Vineyards in Colts Neck, New Jersey, proposing to expand the established “Outer Coastal Plain” AVA. The Outer Coastal Plain AVA (27 CFR 9.207) was established by T.D. TTB-58, which was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2007 (72 FR 6165). The Outer Coastal Plain AVA covers approximately 2.25 million acres in all or portions of Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Monmouth, Ocean, and Salem Counties. The Outer Coastal Plain AVA and the proposed expansion area do not overlap, nor are they within, any other established or proposed AVAs.

The proposed expansion area is located in Monmouth County, adjacent to the western edge of the existing Outer Coastal Plain AVA boundary, and covers approximately 32,932 acres. According to the petition, one commercial vineyard covering a total of 30 acres is located within the proposed expansion area. The vineyard also has its own winery. The vineyard and the winery both existed at the time the Outer Coastal Plain AVA was established in 2007 and are owned by the petitioner. The petitioners for the expansion of the AVA assert in their petition that when the AVA was established, the region of the proposed expansion was intended to be included in the AVA but was inadvertently omitted. The petitioners state that they only recently learned that they are not within the AVA's boundaries.

The petition included a letter from the current president of the Outer Coastal Plain Vineyard Association stating that the Association supports the proposed expansion, and noting that the petitioners for the expansion have been members of that Association since 2006. TTB notes that the Association's Web site lists as a member Bellview Winery, the original petitioner for the Outer Coastal Plain AVA.

According to the petition, the proposed expansion area is similar to the established Outer Coastal Plain AVA with regard to its primary distinguishing features: The soils, elevations, and climate. The most common soils of the proposed expansion area are well-drained soils that contain large amounts of sand and/or gravel, similar to the soils within the Outer Coastal Plain AVA, as described in T.D. TTB-58, which established that AVA. The proposed expansion area and the established Outer Coastal Plain AVA are also both regions of agricultural land with low elevations. Within the Outer Coastal Plain AVA, the elevations are below 280 feet, and within the proposed expansion area, the elevations primarily range from 6 to 150 feet above sea level with a small region along the western edge of the proposed expansion area reaching 250 feet. Finally, although much of the established AVA has a growing season ranging from 190 to 217 days, the proposed expansion area's growing season of 188 to 192 days is similar to that of the adjacent portion of the Outer Coastal Plain AVA.

The regions to the west and northwest of the proposed expansion area are outside the Outer Coastal Plain AVA. These regions are marked by a belt of hills called the cuestas. Elevations within the cuestas can reach as high as 1,680 feet, which is significantly higher than the elevations in both the proposed expansion area and the Outer Coastal Plain AVA. The growing season length within most of the cuestas is also shorter than the growing seasons for the proposed expansion area and the Outer Coastal Plain AVA. The portion of the cuestas immediately adjacent to the proposed expansion area has a growing season length of between 185 and 188 days, but moving farther west and north within the cuestas, the growing season shortens to between 163 and 179 days. Finally, the soils of the cuesta region differ from soils within the proposed expansion area and the Outer Coastal Plain AVA in that they have higher clay content and less sand and gravel.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

TTB published Notice No. 162 in the Federal Register on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64368), proposing to expand the Outer Coastal Plain AVA. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed expansion area. For a detailed description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed expansion area, and for a comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed expansion area to the surrounding areas and to the established Outer Coastal Plain AVA, see Notice No. 162.

Comments Received

In Notice No. 162, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. The comment period closed on November 21, 2016.

In response to Notice No. 162, TTB received one comment. The commenter, who describes himself as a past President of the Outer Coastal Plain Vineyard Association who was involved with the determination of the distinguishing features of the established Outer Coastal Plain AVA, supported the expansion of the Outer Coastal Plain AVA. The commenter stated his belief that the expansion petition contained “valid name evidence, boundary evidence and distinctive features that are recognizable features of the Outer Coastal Plain,” and he specifically cited as shared features the sandy loam and loamy sand soils, soil drainage, and the length of growing degree days. The commenter also stated his belief that the proposed expansion area should be added to the existing AVA. The comment did not raise any new issues concerning the proposed AVA expansion. TTB received no comments opposing the expansion of the Outer Coastal Plain AVA.

TTB Determination

After careful review of the petition and the comment received, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that the proposed expansion area shares the characteristics of the established Outer Coastal Plain AVA and should also be recognized as part of that AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 of the TTB regulations, TTB expands the 2.25 million-acre Outer Coastal Plain AVA to include the approximately 32,932-acre expansion area as described in Notice No. 162, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

Boundary Description

See the narrative description of the boundary of the AVA expansion in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

Maps

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance, and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

The expansion of the Outer Coastal Plain AVA will not affect any other existing AVA, and bottlers using “Outer Coastal Plain” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes within the Outer Coastal Plain AVA will not be affected by this expansion. The expansion of the Outer Coastal Plain AVA will allow vintners to use “Outer Coastal Plain” as an appellation of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the expansion area if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Drafting Information

Dana Register of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

Wine.

The Regulatory Amendment

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.207 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(6) and (7); b. Adding paragraphs (b)(8) through (10); c. Revising paragraphs (c)(16) and (17); d. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(18) through (22) as paragraphs (c)(21) through (25); and e. Adding new paragraphs (c)(18) through (20).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 9.207 Outer Coastal Plain.

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps for determining the boundary of the Outer Coastal Plain viticultural area are 10 United States Geological Survey topographic maps. They are titled:

(6) Cape May, New Jersey, 1981, 1:100,000 scale;

(7) Dover, Delaware-New Jersey-Maryland, 1984, 1:100,000 scale;

(8) Freehold, New Jersey, 2014, 1:24,000 scale;

(9) Marlboro, New Jersey, 2014, 1:24,000 scale; and

(10) Keyport, New Jersey-New York, 2014, 1:24,000 scale.

(c) * * *

(16) Continue northeasterly on CR 537, crossing onto the Freehold, New Jersey, map, to the intersection of CR 537 (known locally as W. Main Street) and State Route 79 (known locally as S. Main Street) in Freehold; then

(17) Proceed northeasterly, then northerly, along State Route 79, crossing onto the Marlboro, New Jersey, map to the intersection of State Route 79 and Pleasant Valley Road in Wickatunk; then

(18) Proceed northeasterly, then southeasterly along Pleasant Valley Road to the road's intersection with Schank Road, south of Pleasant Valley; then

(19) Proceed easterly along Schank Road to the road's intersection with Holmdel Road; then

(20) Proceed northerly along Holmdel Road, crossing onto the Keyport, New Jersey-New York map, to the road's intersection with the Garden State Parkway, north of Crawford Corners; then

Signed: May 2, 2017. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: October 19, 2017. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2017-26414 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2016-0009; T.D. TTB-149; Re: Notice No. 163] RIN 1513-AC34 Establishment of the Petaluma Gap Viticultural Area and Modification of the North Coast Viticultural Area AGENCY:

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule; Treasury decision.

SUMMARY:

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 202,476-acre “Petaluma Gap” viticultural area in portions of Sonoma and Marin Counties in California. The viticultural area lies entirely within the larger existing North Coast viticultural area and partially within the established Sonoma Coast viticultural area. TTB also modifies the boundary of the North Coast viticultural area to eliminate a partial overlap with the Petaluma Gap viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 8, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kaori Flores, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone (202) 453-1039.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

Definition

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of the regulations and a name and a delineated boundary as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Requirements

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

• A copy of the appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

Petaluma Gap Petition

TTB received a petition from Patrick L. Shabram, on behalf of the Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance, proposing the establishment of the “Petaluma Gap” AVA and the modification of the boundary of the established multi-county North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is located in portions of Sonoma and Marin Counties, California. The proposed AVA covers approximately 202,476 acres and contains 80 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of approximately 4,000 acres, as well as 9 bonded wineries. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA include its topography and wind speed.

The proposed AVA lies in southern Sonoma County and northern Marin County, has a northwest-southeast orientation, and extends from the Pacific Ocean to San Pablo Bay. As proposed, a small portion of the Petaluma Gap AVA would overlap a portion of the established North Coast AVA. To eliminate the potential overlap, the petitioner also proposed modifying the boundary of the North Coast AVA to eliminate the potential overlap and place the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA entirely within the North Coast AVA. The proposed modification would increase the size of the 3 million-acre North Coast AVA by approximately 28,077 acres. The petition provided evidence that the proposed expansion area shares the main characteristic of the North Coast AVA—the marine climate influence that moderates growing season temperatures in the area. The expansion area was also shown to have similar growing degree day accumulations to the North Coast AVA and to be within the range of Winkler scale regions that characterizes the rest of the North Coast AVA.

The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is located in the southern portion of the established Sonoma Coast AVA and shares the marine-influenced climate and coastal fog of the established AVA. As proposed, the Petaluma Gap AVA would also partially overlap the southwestern boundary of the established Sonoma Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.116), leaving the Marin County portion of the proposed AVA, consisting of approximately 68,130 acres, outside of the Sonoma Coast AVA. The petition did not propose to modify the boundary of the Sonoma Coast AVA for several reasons, including the lack of use of the name “Sonoma Coast” to describe lands in Marin County. Additionally, the evidence in the petition demonstrated that both the Sonoma County and the Marin County portions of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA share similar topographic characteristics and similar wind speeds, so excluding Marin County entirely would have affected the integrity of the proposed AVA. Further, TTB notes that removing the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA from the Sonoma Coast AVA would potentially affect current label holders who use the “Sonoma Coast” appellation on their wines because wines made primarily from grapes grown in the region removed from the Sonoma Coast AVA would no longer be eligible to be labeled with that AVA as an appellation of origin.

According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA are its topography and wind speeds. The terrain consists of highlands characterized by low, rolling hills not exceeding 600 feet, except in a few places within the ridgelines that form the proposed northern, eastern, and southern boundaries. Within the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, there are also small valleys and fluvial terraces, with flat land along the Petaluma River, especially east of the City of Petaluma and near the mouth of San Pablo Bay. The low elevations and gently rolling terrain of the proposed Petaluma Gap create a corridor that allows marine winds to flow relatively unhindered from the Pacific Ocean to San Pablo Bay, particularly during the mid-to-late afternoon. As a result, cool air and marine fog enter the vineyards during the time of day when temperatures would normally be at their highest, bringing heat relief to the vines.

To the north of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, the elevations are much higher, with elevations over 1,000 feet not uncommon in northern Sonoma County. The broad Santa Rosa Plain is also located north of the proposed AVA and has a much flatter topography than the proposed AVA. East of the proposed AVA, the higher elevations of Sonoma Mountain prevent much of the marine airflow that enters the Petaluma Gap from travelling farther east. East of Sonoma Mountain is the Sonoma Valley, which has lower elevations and flatter terrain than the proposed AVA. To the south of the proposed AVA, the elevations can exceed 1,000 feet.

The low elevations and rolling hills of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA also allow the marine air to enter the proposed AVA at higher speeds than found in the surrounding areas, where higher, steeper mountains disrupt the flow of air. Although marine breezes are present within the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA during most of the day, the wind speeds increase significantly in the afternoon hours because the inland temperatures increase, causing the hot air to rise and pull the cooler, heavier marine air in from the coast and create steady winds.

The effect of these prolonged high wind speeds on grapes is a reduction in photosynthesis to the extent that the grapes have to remain on the vine longer in order to reach a given sugar level (a longer “hang time”), compared to the same grape varietal grown in a less windy location. Grapes grown in windy locations are also typically smaller and have thicker skins than the same varietal grown elsewhere. According to the petition, the smaller grape size, thicker skins, and longer hang time concentrate the flavor compounds in the fruit, allowing grapes that are harvested at lower sugar levels to still have the typical flavor characteristics of the grape varietal.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

TTB published Notice No. 163 in the Federal Register on October 28, 2016, (81 FR 74979), proposing to establish the Petaluma Gap AVA and modify the boundary of the North Coast AVA. In the document, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed viticultural area. For a description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area, and for a comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area to the surrounding areas, see Notice No. 163.

In Notice No. 163, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed AVA's location within the existing North Coast AVA and in the southern portion of the Sonoma Coast AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the two established AVAs. TTB also asked for comments on whether the geographical features of the proposed viticultural area are so distinguishable from the existing North Coast and Sonoma Coast AVAs that the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA should not be part of one or either established AVA.

Additionally, TTB asked for comments on the proposed modification of the North Coast AVA and whether the evidence presented in the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA petition was sufficient to warrant expansion of the North Coast AVA to include the entire proposed Petaluma Gap AVA. Finally, TTB asked for comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition supported allowing the partial overlap between the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and the established Sonoma Coast AVA. The comment period on Notice No. 163 closed on December 27, 2016.

In response to Notice No. 163, TTB received a total of 11 comments, all of which supported the establishment of the Petaluma Gap AVA and the expansion of the North Coast AVA boundary. Commenters were primarily local residents, vineyard owners, and members of the wine industry. The commenters generally supported the proposed AVA due to the rolling terrain and distinct microclimate, featuring distinct temperatures, moderate rainfall, the presence of fog, and wind gusts. Other comments emphasized the distinct flavor of the wines from the Petaluma Gap region and stated that establishing the Petaluma Gap AVA will help consumers to buy and identify wine accurately. Several comments received during the comment period stated that the proposed AVA has characteristics that are distinct from the larger Sonoma Coast AVA and warrant its recognition as a sub-AVA. However, none of the commenters specifically stated that the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA should be completely removed from the Sonoma Coast AVA. TTB received no comments in opposition of the Petaluma Gap AVA, as proposed, and no comments opposing the proposed North Coast AVA boundary modification or the proposed partial overlap with the Sonoma Coast AVA.

TTB Determination

After careful review of the petition and of the comments received in response to Notice No. 163, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the approximately 202,476-acre Petaluma Gap AVA and the modification of the boundary of the North Coast AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Petaluma Gap” AVA in Sonoma and Marin Counties, in California.

TTB has also determined that the land within the Petaluma Gap AVA will remain part of the larger North Coast AVA. The Petaluma Gap AVA shares the basic viticultural feature of the North Coast AVA, which consists of the marine influence that moderates growing season temperatures in the area. Therefore, TTB is recognizing the Petaluma Gap AVA as a distinct AVA within the larger North Coast AVA.

Furthermore, TTB modifies the boundary of the North Coast AVA as described in Notice No. 163. TTB has determined that the expansion area has the similar marine-influenced climate of the North Coast AVA. Therefore, TTB is expanding the North Coast to include all of the Petaluma Gap AVA. This change is effective 30 days from the date of publication of this document. TTB is also allowing the partial overlap of the Petaluma Gap AVA with the Sonoma Coast AVA. The Marin County portion of the Petaluma Gap AVA will remain outside of the Sonoma Coast AVA, while the Sonoma County portion will be within the Sonoma Coast AVA. TTB allows the partial overlap to remain, primarily because the name “Sonoma Coast” is associated only with the coastal region of Sonoma County and does not extend into Marin County.

Boundary Description

See the narrative boundary description of the Petaluma Gap AVA and the modified boundary of the North Coast AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

Maps

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Petaluma Gap,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Once this final rule becomes effective, wine bottlers using the name “Petaluma Gap” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural name as an appellation of origin. The establishment of the Petaluma Gap AVA will allow vintners to use “Petaluma Gap” as an appellation of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the Petaluma Gap AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

The establishment of the Petaluma Gap AVA will not affect any existing viticultural area, and any bottlers using “North Coast AVA” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the North Coast AVA will not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the AVA will allow vintners to use “Petaluma Gap and “North Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the Petaluma Gap AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. Additionally, vintners would be able to use “Sonoma Coast” as an appellation of origin on wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Sonoma County portion of the Petaluma Gap AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.

Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Drafting Information

Kaori Flores of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

Wine.

The Regulatory Amendment

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.30 is amended as follows: a. The introductory text of paragraph (b) is revised; b. The word “and” is removed from the end of paragraph (b)(2); c. The period is removed from the end of paragraph (b)(3) and a semicolon is added in its place; d. Paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) are added; e. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) are revised; f. Paragraphs (c)(3) through (24) are redesignated as paragraphs (c)(7) through (28); and g. Paragraphs (c)(3) through (6) are added.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§  9.30 North Coast.

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps for determining the boundaries of the North Coast viticultural area are five U.S.G.S. maps. They are entitled:

(4) “Tomales, CA,” scale 1:24,000, edition of 1995; and

(5) “Point Reyes NE., CA,” scale 1:24,000, edition of 1995.

(c) * * *

(1) Then follow the Pacific coastline in a generally southeasterly direction for 9.4 miles, crossing onto the Tomales map, to Preston Point on Tomales Bay;

(2) Then northeast along the shoreline of Tomales Bay approximately 1 mile to the mouth of Walker Creek opposite benchmark (BM) 10 on State Highway 1;

(3) Then southeast in a straight line for 1.3 miles to the marked 714-foot peak;

(4) Then southeast in a straight line for 3.1 miles, crossing onto the Point Reyes NE map, to the marked 804-foot peak;

(5) Then southeast in a straight line 1.8 miles to the marked 935-foot peak;

(6) Then southeast in a straight line 12.7 miles, crossing back onto the Santa Rosa map, to the marked 1,466-foot peak on Barnabe Mountain;

3. Add § 9.261 to read as follows:
§  9.261 Petaluma Gap.

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Petaluma Gap”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Petaluma Gap” is a term of viticultural significance.

(b) Approved maps. The 12 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Petaluma Gap viticultural area are titled:

(1) Cotati, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980;

(2) Glen Elle, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980;

(3) Petaluma River, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980;

(4) Sears Point, Calif., 1951; photorevised 1968;

(5) Petaluma Point, Calif., 1959; photorevised 1980;

(6) Novato, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980;

(7) Petaluma, Calif., 1953; photorevised 1981;

(8) Point Reyes NE., CA, 1995;

(9) Tomales, CA, 1995;

(10) Bodega Head, Calif., 1972;

(11) Valley Ford, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1971; and

(12) Two Rock, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1971.

(c) Boundary. The Petaluma Gap viticultural area is located in Sonoma and Marin Counties in California. The boundary of the Petaluma Gap viticultural area is as described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (48) of this section:

(1) The beginning point is on the Cotati map at the intersection of Grange Road, Crane Canyon Road, and the northern boundary of section 16, T6N/R7W. From the beginning point, proceed southeast in a straight line for 1 mile, crossing over Pressley Road, to the intersection of the 900-foot elevation contour and the eastern boundary of section 16, T6N/R7W; the

(2) Proceed east-southeasterly in a straight line for 0.5 mile, crossing onto the Glen Ellen map, to the terminus of an unnamed, unimproved road known locally as Summit View Ranch Road, just north of the southern boundary of section 15, T6N/R7N; then

(3) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the intersection of Crane Creek and the 1,200-foot elevation contour, section 22, T6N/R7W; then

(4) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 2.9 miles to the marked 2,271-foot peak on Sonoma Mountain, T6N/R6W; then

(5) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 10.5 miles, crossing over the northeastern corner of the Petaluma River map and onto the Sears Point map, to the marked 682-foot summit of Wildcat Mountain; then

(6) Proceed south-southeasterly in a straight line for 3.3 miles to the intersection of State Highway 121 (also known locally as Arnold Drive) and State Highway 37 (also known locally as Sears Point Road); then

(7) Proceed east-northeasterly along State Highway 37/Sears Point Road for approximately 0.1 mile to Tolay Creek; then

(8) Proceed generally south along the meandering Tolay Creek for 3.9 miles, crossing onto the Petaluma Point map, to the mouth of the creek at San Pablo Bay; then

(9) Proceed southwesterly along the shore of San Pablo Bay for 2.7 miles, crossing the mouth of the Petaluma River, and continuing southeasterly along the bay's shoreline to Petaluma Point; then

(10) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line for 6.3 miles, crossing over the northeastern corner of the Novato map and onto the Petaluma River map, to the marked 1,558-foot peak of Burdell Mountain; then

(11) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.3 miles to the marked 1,193-foot peak; then

(12) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line for 2.2 miles, crossing onto the Petaluma map, to the marked 1,209-foot peak; then

(13) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the marked 1,296-foot peak; then

(14) Proceed west in a straight line for 1 mile to the marked 1,257-foot peak on Red Hill in section 31, T4N/R7W; then

(15) Proceed southwest in a straight line for 2.9 miles to the marked 1,532-foot peak on Hicks Mountain; then

(16) Proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line for 2.7 miles, crossing onto the Point Reyes NE map, to the marked 1,087-foot peak; then

(17) Proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line for 1.5 miles to the marked 1,379-foot peak; then

(18) Proceed west-northwesterly in a straight line for 2.9 miles to the marked 935-foot peak; then

(19) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.8 miles to the marked 804-foot peak; then

(20) Proceed west-northwesterly in a straight line for 3.1 miles, crossing onto the Tomales map, to the marked 741-foot peak; then

(21) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line for 1.3 miles to benchmark (BM) 10 on State Highway 1, at the mouth of Walker Creek in Tomales Bay; then

(22) Proceed southwesterly, then northwesterly along the shoreline of Tomales Bay to Sand Point, on Bodega Bay, and continuing northerly along the shoreline of Bodega Bay, crossing over the Valley Ford map and onto the Bodega Head map, circling the shoreline of Bodega Harbor to the Pacific Ocean and continuing northerly along the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean to the mouth of Salmon Creek, for a total of 19.5 miles; then

(23) Proceed easterly along Salmon Creek for 9.6 miles, crossing onto the Valley Ford map and passing Nolan Creek, to the second intermittent stream in the Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then

(24) Proceed east in a straight line for 1 mile to vertical angle benchmark (VABM) 724 in the Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then

(25) Proceed south-southeasterly in a straight line for 0.8 mile to BM 61 on an unmarked light duty road known locally as Freestone Valley Ford Road in the Cañada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then

(26) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the marked 448-foot peak in the Cañada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then

(27) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.1 mile to the northern terminus of an unnamed, unimproved road in the Cañada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then

(28) Proceed northeasterly, then southeasterly for 0.9 mile along the unnamed, unimproved road to the 400-foot elevation contour in the Cañada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then

(29) Proceed easterly along the meandering 400-foot elevation contour for 6.7 miles, crossing onto the Two Rocks map, to Burnside Road in the Cañada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then

(30) Proceed south on Burnside Road for 0.1 mile to an unnamed medium duty road known locally as Bloomfield Road in the Cañada de Pogolimi land grant,T6N/R9W; then

(31) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the marked 610-foot peak in the Blucher land grant, T6N/R9W; then

(32) Proceed east-southeasterly in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the marked 641-foot peak in the Blucher land grant, T6N/R9W; then

(33) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 1.2 miles, crossing through the intersection of an intermittent stream with Canfield Road, to the common Range 8/9 boundary; then

(34) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the marked 542-foot peak; then

(35) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the intersection of an unnamed, unimproved road (leading to four barn-like structures) known locally as Carniglia Lane and an unnamed medium duty road known locally as Roblar Road, T6N/R8W; then

(36) Proceed south in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the marked 678-foot peak, T6N/R8W; then

(37) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the marked 599-foot peak, T5N/R8W; then

(38) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 0.7 mile to the marked 604-foot peak, T5N/R8W; then

(39) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 0.9 mile, crossing onto the Cotati map, to the intersection of Meacham Road and an unnamed light duty road leading to a series of barn-like structures, T5N/R8W; then

(40) Proceed north-northeast along Meacham Road for 0.8 mile to Stony Point Road, T5N/R8W; then

(41) Proceed southeast along Stony Point Road for 1.1 miles to the 200-foot elevation contour, T5N/R8W; then

(42) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the intersection of an intermittent creek with U.S. Highway 101, T5N/R8W; then

(43) Proceed north along U.S. Highway 101 for 1.5 miles to State Highway 116 (also known locally as Graverstein Highway), T6N/R8W; then

(44) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 3.4 miles to the intersection of Crane Creek and Petaluma Hill Road, T6N/R7W; then

(45) Proceed easterly along Crane Creek for 0.8 mile to the intersection of Crane Creek and the 200-foot elevation line, T6N/R7W; then

(46) Proceed northwesterly along the 200-foot elevation contour for 1 mile to the intersection of the contour line and an intermittent stream just south of Crane Canyon Road, T6N/R7W; then

(47) Proceed east then northeasterly along the northern branch of the intermittent stream for 0.3 mile to the intersection of the stream with Crane Canyon Road, T6N/R7W; then

(48) Proceed northeasterly along Crane Canyon Road for 1.2 miles, returning to the beginning point.

Signed: June 14, 2017. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: October 26, 2017. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2017-26410 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2550 [Application Number D-11712; D-11713; D-11850] ZRIN 1210-ZA27 18-Month Extension of Transition Period and Delay of Applicability Dates; Best Interest Contract Exemption (PTE 2016-01); Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (PTE 2016-02); Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 for Certain Transactions Involving Insurance Agents and Brokers, Pension Consultants, Insurance Companies, and Investment Company Principal Underwriters (PTE 84-24); Correction AGENCY:

Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.

ACTION:

Technical corrections.

SUMMARY:

This document corrects two errors in the preamble of a document that appeared in the Federal Register on November 29, 2017.

DATES:

Issuance date: The correction is issued December 7, 2017 without further action or notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Shiker or Susan Wilker, (202) 693-8824, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

There is a clerical error in footnote 66 in FR Doc. 2017-25760 (published November 29, 2017 at 82 FR 56545), entitled “18-Month Extension of Transition Period and Delay of Applicability Dates; Best Interest Contract Exemption (PTE 2016-01); Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (PTE 2016-02); Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 for Certain Transactions Involving Insurance Agents and Brokers, Pension Consultants, Insurance Companies, and Investment Company Principal Underwriters (PTE 84-24).”

Footnote 66 is situated in the regulatory impact analysis section of the preamble. The textual discussion surrounding footnote 66 focuses on regulatory alternatives considered, but rejected by the Department of Labor (Department). Footnote 66 identifies certain public commenters who support a contingent or tiered delay, two regulatory alternatives the Department declined to adopt. Due to a clerical error, the footnote also inadvertently includes the names of public commenters who do not support a contingent or tiered delay. This document corrects that error.

In addition, there is text missing in the portion of the preamble that discusses the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The Department inadvertently omitted a discussion of the basis for making the delay effective more quickly than the 60-day period generally required by the CRA for major rules. This document corrects that error.

II. Correction of Errors

In FR Doc. 2017-25760 of November 29, 2017 (82 FR 56545), make the following preamble corrections:

1. On page 56557, second column, correct footnote 66 to read “See, e.g., Comment Letter #121 (HSBC North America Holdings Inc.); Comment Letter #124 (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP).”

2. On page 56559, second column, add the following language to the end of Congressional Review Act discussion: “Although the CRA generally requires that major rules become effective no sooner than 60 days after Congress receives the required report, the CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner, if the agency makes a good cause finding that such public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons underlying the good cause finding in the April Delay Rule, the Department has made such a good cause finding for this rule. See 82 FR 16902, 16915 (April 7, 2017).”

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of December, 2017. Jeanne Klinefelter Wilson, Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2017-26478 Filed 12-5-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 950 [SATS No: WY-045-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2013-0002; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 189S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 18XS501520] Wyoming Regulatory Program AGENCY:

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule; approval of amendment with certain exceptions.

SUMMARY:

We are issuing a final decision on an amendment to the Wyoming regulatory program (the “Wyoming program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (“SMCRA” or “the Act”). Our decision approves in part and disapproves in part the amendment. Wyoming proposes both revisions of and additions to its coal rules and regulations concerning ownership and control, adds a provision concerning variable topsoil depths during reclamation, and addresses four deficiencies that were identified by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) during the review of a previous program amendment (WY-038-FOR; Docket ID No. OSM-2009-0012). Wyoming revised its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and SMCRA, clarify ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.

DATES:

The effective date is January 8, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Fleischman, Chief, Denver Field Division, Telephone: 307-261-6550, Internet address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Wyoming Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSMRE's) Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. OSMRE's Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Wyoming Program

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Wyoming program on November 26, 1980. You can find background information on the Wyoming program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Wyoming program in the November 26, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 78637). You can also find later actions concerning Wyoming's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 950.12, 950.15, 950.16, and 950.20.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

By letter dated January 8, 2013, Wyoming sent us a proposed amendment to its approved regulatory program (Administrative Record Docket ID No. OSM-2013-0002) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Wyoming submitted the amendment to address required rule changes OSMRE identified in a letter to Wyoming dated October 2, 2009, under 30 CFR 732.17(c) (“732 letter”). These included changes to Wyoming's rules for ownership and control. The amendment also adds a provision concerning variable topsoil depths during reclamation, addresses four deficiencies that OSMRE identified in response to Wyoming's formally submitted revegetation rule package (WY-038-FOR; Docket ID No. OSM-2009-0012), and corrects numerous inaccurate citations to other sections of Wyoming's rules and regulations.

We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the February 26, 2013, Federal Register (78 FR 13004). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy (Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM-2013-0002-0001). We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on March 28, 2013. We received comments from two Federal agencies (discussed under “IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments”).

During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns regarding Wyoming's proposed rule changes in response to the October 2, 2009, 732 letter including the omission of the term “surface” in its newly-proposed definition of “Control or Controller” at Chapter 1, Section 2(aa), the title for Chapter 2 of its rules concerning permit application requirements, and its revised rule at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(ii)(A)(I) regarding the requirement that permit applications contain a complete statement of compliance; revisions to its rules concerning adjudication requirements and identification of interests at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(B); its rules at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(I) regarding unanticipated events or conditions at remining sites; its final compliance review requirements at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(viii)(B); its provisions concerning written agency decisions on challenges to ownership or control listings or findings at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(F); and its transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights requirements at Chapter 12, Section 1(b)(ii). We notified Wyoming of these concerns by letter dated April 9, 2013 (Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM-2013-0002-0012).

We delayed final rulemaking to afford Wyoming the opportunity to submit new material to address the deficiencies. Wyoming responded in a letter dated July 2, 2013, that it could not currently submit additional formal revisions to the amendment due to the administrative rulemaking requirements for promulgation of revised substantive rules (Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM-2013-0002-0013). Specifically, Wyoming explained that the required changes would be considered substantive in nature and therefore the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Land Quality Division (LQD) is required to present the proposed rules to the LQD Advisory Board and then the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council for vetting. Following approval by the Governor, the rules may be submitted to OSMRE for final review. Wyoming could not submit formal changes, but it did submit informal responses to OSMRE's noted concerns. Therefore, we are proceeding to the final rule Federal Register document. Our concerns and Wyoming's responses thereto are explained in detail below.

III. OSMRE's Findings

30 CFR 732.17(h)(10) requires that State program amendments meet the criteria for approval of State programs set forth in 30 CFR 732.15, including that the State's laws and regulations are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR part 700. In 30 CFR 730.5, OSMRE defines “consistent with” and “in accordance with” to mean (a) with regard to SMCRA, the State laws and regulations are no less stringent than, meet the minimum requirements of, and include all applicable provisions of the Act, and (b) with regard to the Federal regulations, the State laws and regulations are no less effective than the Federal regulations in meeting the requirements of SMCRA.

The following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving the amendment with certain exceptions as described below.

A. Minor Revisions to Wyoming's Rules

Wyoming proposed minor punctuation, grammatical, and codification changes to the following previously-approved rules. Many of the codification changes correct inaccurate citations and cross-references that resulted from Wyoming's proposed rule changes. No substantive changes to the text of these regulations were proposed. Because the proposed revisions to these previously approved rules are minor, we are approving the changes and find that they are no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations at 30 CFR parts 700 through 887.

Chapter 2, Section 1(c)(v); minor grammatical and citation cross-reference changes;

Chapter 2, Section 3(c)(iii)(F), and (f); citation cross-reference changes;

Chapter 2, Section 3(i)(i)(A); minor grammatical change;

Chapter 2, Section 5(a)(viii)(B)(II) and (C); citation cross-reference changes;

Chapter 2, Section 5(a)(ix)(D)(I)(1.) and (2.); (II)(1.) and (2.); and (xvi)(A)(IV); citation cross-reference changes;

Chapter 2, Section 6(b)(iv)(A); citation cross-reference change;

Chapter 4, Section 2(c)(xi)(G)(II)(1.)(c.) and (xii)(A)(I); citation cross-reference changes;

Chapter 4, Section 2(d)(i)(J); citation cross-reference change;

Chapter 4, Section 2(d)(i)(M)(II); citation cross-reference changes;

Chapter 4, Section 2(d)(ii)(B)(I)(2.) and (D)(II); citation cross-reference changes;

Chapter 4, Section 2(d)(ii)(C)(II); punctuation and citation cross-reference changes;

Chapter 4, Section 2(f)(iii); citation cross-reference change; and

Chapter 4, Section 2(i); minor grammar and citation cross-reference changes.

B. Revisions to Wyoming's Rules That Have the Same Meaning as the Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations.

1. Wyoming proposes additions and revisions to the following rules containing language that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the Federal regulations and/or SMCRA. Therefore we are approving them.

Chapter 1, Section 2(i); definition of “Applicant violator system or AVS;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(co); definition of “Notice of violation;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(cr); definition of “Own, owner or ownership;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(cv); definition of “Permit transfer, assignment or sale of permit rights;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(ez); definition of “surface coal mining and reclamation operations;” [30 CFR 700.5];

Chapter 2, Section 1(c); Permit applications; USGS topographic map scale requirement; [30 CFR 777.14(a)];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(C) and (D); Permit Applications; adjudication requirements and identification of interests; [30 CFR 778.11(a)(2) and (b)(4)];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(E); Permit Applications; adjudication requirements and identification of interests; [30 CFR 778.11(c) and (d)];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(ii)(A)(II); Permit Applications; adjudication requirements and statement of compliance; [30 CFR 778.14(a)(2)];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(ii)(A)(III); Permit Applications; adjudication requirements and statement of compliance; [30 CFR 778.14(b)];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(ii)(B); Permit Applications; adjudication requirements and statement of compliance; [30 CFR 778.14(c)];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(iv), (v)(A)(I)(2.) and (III); Permit Applications; adjudication requirements and statement of compliance; [30 CFR 778.15 and 778.16];

Chapter 4, Section 2(c)(v)(A); General Environmental Protection Performance Standards; topsoil, subsoil, and/or approved topsoil substitutes; [30 CFR 816/817.22(d)(1)(i)];

Chapter 4, Section 2(l)(ii)(F); Environmental Protection Performance Standards; unanticipated events or conditions at remining sites; [30 CFR 773.13(b)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(viii); Permitting Procedures; final compliance review; [30 CFR 773.8(a), 773.9(b), 773.10(a) and 773.11(b)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(viii)(A); Permitting Procedures; final compliance review; [30 CFR 773.9(a)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(viii)(C); Permitting Procedures; final compliance review; [30 CFR 773.11(a)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(ix)(A)-(C); Permitting Procedures; entry of information into AVS; [30 CFR 773.8(b) and (c)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(ix)(D); Permitting Procedures; entry of information into AVS post-permit issuance; [30 CFR 774.11(a)(1)-(4)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(ix)(E); Post-permit issuance requirements for regulatory authorities and other actions based on ownership, control, and violation information; [30 CFR 774.11(d)-(h)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(ix)(F); Post-permit issuance requirements for regulatory authorities and other actions based on ownership, control, and violation information; [30 CFR 778.11(e)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(II)-(IV); Eligibility for provisionally issued permits; [30 CFR 773.14(a), (b), and (c)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiii)(A)-(C); Permitting Procedures; ownership or control challenges; [30 CFR 773.25(a)-(c)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(A)and(B); Permitting Procedures; ownership or control challenges; [30 CFR 773.26(a)-(d)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(D) and (E); Permitting Procedures; ownership or control challenges; [30 CFR 773.27(a)-(c)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(G)(I)-(IX); Permitting Procedures; improvidently issued coal mining permits; [30 CFR 773.21(a)-(e), 773.22(a)-(g) and 773.23(a)-(d)];

Chapter 12, Section 1(b); Permitting Procedures; procedural requirements relating to permitting applications; [30 CFR 774.17(b)]; and

Chapter 16, Section 2(j); Enforcement and AVS; [30 CFR 774.11(b)].

2. Wyoming proposed to remove the term “surface” throughout its rules in Chapters 1, 2, and 4 in an earlier rulemaking action (WY-038-FOR). OSMRE subsequently disapproved Wyoming's proposed deletions in a June 14, 2011, Federal Register notice (76 FR 34816, 34821) because they were less stringent than SMCRA and less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations. Wyoming now proposes to add the term “surface” back to its rules where it was previously removed. Wyoming's reinsertion of the term “surface” makes the following rules the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the Federal regulations. Therefore we are approving them.

Chapter 1 (title); Authorities and Definitions for Surface Coal Mining Operations [30 CFR 701.3 and 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(u)(ii); definition of “Coal exploration;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(aw); definition of “Existing structure;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(az); definition of “Farm;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(br); definition of “Imminent danger to the public;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(bz); definition of “Joint agency approval;” [30 CFR 761.17(d)];

Chapter 1, Section 2(ca); definition of “Land use;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(cg); definition of “Materially damage the quantity or quality of water;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(dd); definition of “Probable hydrologic consequences;” [30 CFR 780.21(f)];

Chapter 1, Section 2(df); definition of “Property to be mined;” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(ds); definition of “Road(s);” [30 CFR 701.5];

Chapter 1, Section 2(fi); definition of “Trade secret;” [30 CFR 772.15(b) and 773.6(d)(2) and (3)(i) and (ii)];

Chapter 1, Section 3(b)(i) and (c); Applicability; [30 CFR 701.11];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a); Providing applicant and operator information; [30 CFR 778.11(a)];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(iv); Status of unsuitability claims; [30 CFR 778.16(a)];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(v)(A)(I)(2.); Ground water and surface water quality monitoring; [30 CFR 780.21(i) and (j)];

Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(v)(A)(III); State engineer information (no Federal counterpart]; and

Chapter 4 (title); Environmental Protection Performance Standards for Surface Coal Mining Operations [30 CFR part 816].

3. Chapter 1, Section 2(fs); Definition of “Violation.”

Item A.6 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter required Wyoming to adopt a State counterpart to the Federal definition of “violation,” when used in the context of the permit application information or permit eligibility requirements. The 732 letter states that in the 2000 rule (beginning at 65 FR 79605), the term was defined for the first time and separately from “violation notice” to distinguish action or inaction that constitutes a violation from the written notice of violation. The letter further explained that the definition added a new violation type at (2)(v), when the amount [of bond] forfeited and collected is insufficient for full reclamation, the regulatory authority is authorized to order reimbursement of the additional reclamation costs.

In response to Item A.6, Wyoming proposed a new rule at Chapter 1, Section 2(fs) that is substantively identical to the Federal definition of “violation” at 30 CFR 701.5. Wyoming also references its regulations pertaining to permit application information or permit eligibility requirements in proposed Chapter 1, Section 2(fs). Referencing these rules in place of the corresponding Federal requirements in Sections 507 and 510(c) of SMCRA does not render the proposed definition less effective.

Similarly, Wyoming references its statutes pertaining to bond forfeiture and cessation orders at W.S. §§ 35-11-421, 422, and 437, respectively. Referencing these statutes in place of the corresponding Federal regulations in subsections (ii)(B) and (E) does not render the proposed rules less effective. Wyoming also explains in its Statement of Principal Reasons for Adoption (SOPR) that it did not provide a counterpart provision to subsection 2(v)(C) of the Federal definition regarding bond forfeiture sites that are covered by an alternative bonding system because Wyoming does not have an alternative bonding system approved under 30 CFR 800.11(e). Wyoming's proposed definition of “violation” is no less effective than the Federal definition at 30 CFR 701.5 and satisfies Item A.6 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter. Accordingly, we are approving it.

4. Chapter 2, Section 1(a), Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(G), and Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xi); Certifying and updating existing permit application information.

In response to Item K.1 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter, Wyoming revised its rule at Chapter 2, Section 1(a) and proposed new rules at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(G)(I)-(III) pertaining to permit application requirements and Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xi) regarding permitting procedures that allow an applicant who has previously applied for a permit with the regulatory authority and who has information which is already in the AVS to update the information required under 30 CFR 778.9.

Wyoming's newly-proposed rules at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(G)(I)-(III) and Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xi) include counterpart provisions to 778.9(a)(1)-(3) and (d), respectively. Wyoming's proposed revision to its existing rule at Chapter 2, Section 1(a) includes counterpart language to 778.9(b) that requires an applicant to swear or affirm, under oath and in writing, that all information the applicant provides in an application is accurate and complete. Wyoming also proposed to revise its existing rule to include counterpart language to 778.9(c) which states that the regulatory authority may establish a central file to house the applicant's identity information, rather than place duplicate information in each of the applicant's permit files, and will make the information available to the public upon request.

Wyoming's references to its regulations pertaining to required permit application information are consistent with references in the corresponding Federal requirements and do not render the newly-proposed rules less effective. Wyoming's proposed rule changes, taken together, satisfy the requirements specified in Item K.1 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter and are consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 778.9. For that reason, we are approving them.

5. Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(F); Providing applicant and operator information.

Item K.3 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter instructs the reader to “See LQD Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1, Section 2 and Chapter 2, Section 2” regarding counterpart rules to the Federal requirements for providing applicant and operator permit history information at 30 CFR 778.12. The 732 letter indicates that this section was newly added in the 2000 rule and it was constructed from provisions in previous 778.13.

In response to Item K.3, Wyoming proposed new rules at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(F) that require each application for a surface coal mining permit to contain a complete identification of interests and permit history information required under 30 CFR 778.12.

Wyoming's proposed rule at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(F) includes counterpart provisions to 778.12(b), and (c), respectively. Wyoming's proposed rule language adds specificity to the extent that it requires each application for a surface coal mining and reclamation permit contain a list of any pending, current or previous permit applications held by the applicant and the operator's partner or principal shareholders who operate or previously operated a surface coal mining operation during the five year period preceding the date of the application. Wyoming's proposed rule language in subsection (F) is no less effective than the Federal requirements at 778.12(b) and (c) and satisfies the applicable requirements specified in Item K.3 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter. Accordingly, we are approving it.

6. Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(A)-(C), (xi) and (xii); Permitting procedures; Permit eligibility determinations.

In response to Item E.6 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter Wyoming proposed new rules at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(A)-(C), (xi) and (xii) pertaining to permit eligibility determinations required under 30 CFR 773.12.

Wyoming's newly-proposed rules at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(A)-(C) include counterpart provisions for determining permit eligibility that are substantively identical to the Federal requirements at 773.12(a) and (b). Wyoming also references its statutes concerning permit eligibility and permanent ineligibility determinations for applicants at W.S. § 35-11-406(n) and (o), respectively. Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xi) includes counterpart language to the first part of 773.12(c) that requires an applicant to update, correct, or indicate that no change has occurred to existing permit application information required by Chapter 2, Section 2 following approval but prior to issuance of that permit. Lastly, Wyoming proposed a new rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xii) that includes counterpart language to the second part of 773.12(c) and subsection (d) which states that once the above requirements are met, the DEQ shall request a compliance history report from AVS to determine if there are any unabated or uncorrected violations that affect the applicant's permit eligibility in subsection (x) above. The DEQ shall request this report no more than five business days before a permit is issued. If the applicant is ineligible for a permit the DEQ shall send written notification of the decision and will detail the reasons for ineligibility and include notice of appeal rights.

Wyoming's references to its statutes and regulations pertaining to permit eligibility determinations are consistent with references in the corresponding Federal requirements and do not render the newly-proposed rules at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(A)-(C), (xi) and (xii) less effective. Wyoming's proposed rule changes, taken together, satisfy the requirements specified in Item E.6 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter and are consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.12. For that reason, we are approving them.

7. Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(II)-(IV); Eligibility for provisionally issued permits.

In response to Item E.8 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter, Wyoming proposed new rules at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D) (II)-(IV) pertaining to eligibility requirements for provisionally issued permits under 30 CFR 773.14.

Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D) (II) includes counterpart provisions to 773.14(a) regarding provisionally issued permit eligibility for applicants who own or control a surface coal mining and reclamation operation with a notice of violation issued under Chapter 16 of Wyoming's rules for which the abatement period has not yet expired, or a violation that is unabated or uncorrected beyond the abatement or correction period.

Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D) (III) includes counterpart language to 773.14(b)(3) and (4) and states that an applicant is eligible for a provisionally issued permit if the applicant is pursuing a good faith challenge to all pertinent ownership or control listings or findings under Chapter 12, Section 1, or administrative or judicial appeal of all pertinent ownership or control listings or findings, or contesting the validity of a violation unless there is an initial judicial decision affirming the listing or finding or the violation, and those decisions remain in force.

Lastly, Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(IV) includes counterpart language to 773.14(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) and states that a provisionally issued permit will be considered improvidently issued and the Division will begin procedures to suspend or rescind the permit as described in Section 1(a)(xiv)(G) if the violations are not abated within the specified abatement period, or the applicant, operator or operations that the operator or applicant own or control do not comply with the terms of an abatement plan or payment schedule for fees or penalties assessed. Suspension or rescission proceedings will also be initiated if, in the absence of a request for judicial review, the disposition of a challenge and any subsequent administrative review as discussed above affirms the validity of the violation or the ownership or control listing or finding, or if the initial judicial review decision discussed above affirms the validity of the violation or the ownership or control listing or finding.

Wyoming's references to its regulations pertaining to enforcement actions, ownership or control listings or findings, and improvidently issued permits are consistent with references in the corresponding Federal requirements and do not render the newly-proposed rules less effective. Wyoming's proposed rule changes, taken together, satisfy the requirements specified in Item E.8 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter and are consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.14. As a result, we are approving them.

8. Chapter 16, Section 2(h); Post-permit issuance information requirements for permittees.

In response to Item H.2 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter, Wyoming proposed revisions to its rules at Chapter 16, Section 2(h) to require that permittees provide or update all the ownership and control information required under Chapter 2 of its rules within 30 days of issuance of a cessation order as required by 30 CFR 774.12(a). In addition, Wyoming proposed language to be consistent with and no less effective than the Federal counterpart rules at 774.12(b) by stating that information does not need to be provided if a court of competent jurisdiction has granted a stay of the cessation order and that stay remains in effect.

Wyoming also proposed counterpart language to 774.12(c) which requires that within 60 days of any addition, departure or change in position of any person identified in Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(E), the applicant or permittee shall provide the information required by that section and the date of any departure. Wyoming's counterpart provisions to 778.11(c) and (d) appear at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(E).

Item M of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter addressing cessation orders under 30 CFR 843.11(g) notes that prior to the 2000 rule, this section required notification of those identified as owners and controllers when a cessation order was written. The 2000 rule changed the notification requirement from only those identified as owners and controllers, to a general notification of those persons listed in the cessation order that a cessation order has been issued.

In response to Item M, Wyoming proposed to revise its rule at Chapter 16, Section 2(h) by adding counterpart language to 843.11(g) that provides a general written notification to those persons listed or identified as an owner or controller of the operation in the cessation order that a cessation order has been issued.

Wyoming's references to its regulations pertaining to ownership or control information are consistent with references in the corresponding Federal requirements and do not render the newly-proposed rule less effective. Wyoming's proposed rule changes, taken together, satisfy the requirements specified in Items H.2 and M of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter and are consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.12 and 843.11(g), respectively. Accordingly, we are approving them.

C. Revisions to Wyoming's Rules That Are Not the Same as the Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations

1. Chapters 1 and 2, Omission of the term “Surface.”

In a previous rulemaking action, Wyoming proposed to delete the definition of “surface coal mining and reclamation operations” in Chapter 1, Section 2, as well as the word “surface” throughout its rules in Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5, respectively. OSMRE subsequently disapproved Wyoming's proposed deletions in a June 14, 2011, Federal Register notice (76 FR 34816, 34821).

In response, Wyoming proposed to reinsert its regulatory definition of “surface coal mining and reclamation operations,” which was approved in its November 26, 1980, original program approval, and is substantively identical to the Federal definitions found at Section 701(27) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 700.5, respectively. Wyoming also proposed to reinsert the term “surface” in its rules where it had been previously removed.

OSMRE replied in a letter dated April 9, 2013, that in order to maintain consistency with its rules and be no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5 and 778.14(a)(1), Wyoming must also include the term “surface” in its newly-proposed definition of “Control or Controller” at Chapter 1, Section 2(aa). In addition, Wyoming needs to reinsert the phrase “For Surface Coal Mining Operations” in the title for Chapter 2, and include the term “surface” in its revised rule at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(ii)(A)(I) regarding the requirement that permit applications contain a complete statement of compliance.

Wyoming responded in a letter dated July 2, 2013, and stated that it will add the term “surface” to its rules as directed in the April 9, 2013, concern letter in a future rulemaking.

Based on the discussion above, we are not approving Wyoming's proposed rule changes that omit the term “surface” from its rules. We also acknowledge Wyoming's commitment to reinstate the term in a future rulemaking effort.

2. Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(B); Adjudication Requirements—Identification of Interests.

Item K.3 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter instructs the reader to “See LQD Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1, Section 2 and Chapter 2, Section 2” regarding counterpart rules to the Federal requirements for providing applicant and operator permit history information at 30 CFR 778.12. The 732 letter indicates that this section was newly added in the 2000 rule and it was constructed from provisions in previous § 778.13.

In response to Item K.3, Wyoming proposed to revise its rules at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(B) to identify additional organizational members in an application for a surface coal mining permit including owners of record of ten (10) percent or more of the business entity in question, as required under 30 CFR 778.11(b).

OSMRE replied in a letter dated April 9, 2013, that Wyoming's proposed rule at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(B) includes counterpart provisions to § 778.11(b)(1)-(3). In addition, Wyoming's counterpart language to § 778.11(b)(4) is found in proposed subsection (D). The language in these provisions, taken together, are consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 778.11(b). However, Wyoming's existing rule language in subsection (B) warrants the inclusion of additional clarifying language to be consistent with and no less effective than both the Federal counterpart rule at 30 CFR 778.12(a) and its proposed rule language in Subsection (F). Specifically, Wyoming needs to revise the language in subsection (B) to read “* * * This shall also include a list of all the names under which the applicant, the applicant's partners or principal shareholders, and the operator and the operator's partners or principal shareholders operate or previously operated a surface coal mining operation in the United States within the five year period preceding the date of submission of the application * * *.” Accordingly, we required Wyoming to further revise its proposed rule language to be no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 778.12(a).

Wyoming responded in a letter dated July 2, 2013, and stated that it will draft a revised rule to be consistent with the Federal Regulations at 30 CFR 778.12(a) and add the term “surface” as discussed in Finding III.C.1. above in a future rule package.

Therefore, we are not approving Wyoming's revised rule at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(B). We also acknowledge Wyoming's commitment to revise the proposed rule language as discussed above in a future rulemaking effort.

3. Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(I); Unanticipated Events or Conditions at Remining Sites.

Item E.7 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter under “application and permit review requirements” instructs the reader to “See LQD Coal Rules and Regulations, Chapter 5, Section 7” regarding unanticipated events or conditions at remining sites. Chapter 5, Section 7 of Wyoming's rules includes a section on remining, but does not address permit eligibility and unanticipated events or conditions at remining sites. Consequently, OSMRE required that Wyoming submit counterpart rules to the Federal regulations at 773.13.

In response to Item E.7, Wyoming revised its rules at Chapter 4, Section 2(l)(ii)(F) to include a State counterpart to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.13(b) that addresses permit eligibility and unanticipated events or conditions at remining sites. Wyoming also revised its rules at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(I) to include a State counterpart to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.13(a) which provides an exception to permit ineligibility for applicants with unabated violations that result from unanticipated events or conditions on lands eligible for remining.

OSMRE replied in a letter dated April 9, 2013, that Wyoming's newly-proposed rule language at Chapter 4, Section 2(l)(ii)(F) is consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations. However, unlike its newly-proposed rule at Subsection (F), Wyoming does not include the phrase “event or” in its proposed rule language at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(I) which reads “from an unanticipated condition at a surface coal mining and reclamation operation * * *.” Thus, in order to maintain consistency with its own rules and be no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.13(a), we required Wyoming to revise the proposed rule language to include the phrase “event or.”

Wyoming responded in a letter dated July 2, 2013, and stated that Chapter 4, Section 2(l)(ii)(F) is part of a section that is entitled “unanticipated conditions” and that Subsection (F) is the only location where the “event or” language is found in the rules. For this reason, Wyoming believes that the rules in Chapter 12 follow the broader language of “unanticipated conditions” and therefore does not need the “event or” language as it would appear that this would merely be a synonymous term for “unanticipated conditions.” Accordingly, Wyoming does not agree that the rules in Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(I) are less effective than the Federal counterpart. However, Wyoming agreed that if during the final review the rules are still found less effective than the Federal counterpart, a revision to the rules will be made.

We disagree with Wyoming's rationale for not revising its rules. Specifically, Wyoming's claim that the phrase “event or” is synonymous with the phrase “unanticipated conditions” is erroneous. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5 define “Unanticipated event or condition” to mean “an event or condition related to prior mining activity which arises from a surface coal mining and reclamation operation on lands eligible for remining and was not contemplated by the applicable permit.” While Wyoming does not have a counterpart definition in its rules, the Federal definition clearly distinguishes between the two terms as demonstrated by the word “or.” Moreover, because this phrase has been defined, Wyoming's use of the phrase in its rules must be consistent with its use in the Federal regulations.

Based on the discussion above, we are not approving Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(I). We also acknowledge Wyoming's willingness to revise the proposed rule language we are disapproving in a future rulemaking effort.

4. Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(viii)(B); Final Compliance Review.

In response to Item E.4 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter, Wyoming revised its rules at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(viii)(B) to include State counterpart language to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.10(a)-(c) that address an applicant or operator's permit history.

OSMRE replied in letter dated April 9, 2013, that Wyoming's newly-proposed rule language is consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 773.10(a) and (b). However, Wyoming's proposed rule at subsection (B) warrants the inclusion of additional clarifying language with respect to conducting additional ownership or control investigations to be consistent with and no less effective than the Federal counterpart rule at 30 CFR 773.10(c). Specifically, Wyoming needs to revise its proposed rule to read “* * * if the applicant or operator does not have any previous mining experience, additional ownership or control investigations may be conducted under subsection (ix)(E) below to determine if someone else with mining experience controls the mining operation; and * * *.” Subsection (ix)(E) of Wyoming's proposed rules includes counterpart language to 30 CFR 774.11(f) which is referenced in § 773.10(c). Accordingly, we required Wyoming to further revise its proposed rule language to be no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.10(c). We also required Wyoming to replace the term “regulatory authority” in proposed subsection (B) with the appropriate State reference (e.g., “Division”) in order to maintain consistency throughout its rules.

Wyoming responded in a letter dated July 2, 2013, and stated that it will propose rule language, as detailed in OSMRE's April 9, 2013, letter to be consistent with the Federal Regulations at 30 CFR 773.10(c), and will add the previously defined clarifier “Division” to be consistent with the rest of the Chapter in a future rulemaking.

Therefore, we are not approving Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(viii)(B). We also acknowledge Wyoming's commitment to revise the proposed rule language as discussed above in a future rulemaking effort.

5. Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(C); Permitting Procedures; Challenges to Ownership or Control Listings in AVS.

In response to Item F.2 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter, Wyoming revised its rules at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(C) to include a State counterpart provision to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.26(e) that allows a person who is unsure why he or she is shown in AVS as an owner or controller of a surface coal mining operation to request an informal explanation from OSMRE's AVS office. The provision requires a response to such a request within 14 days.

During OSMRE's review of the amendment, we found that Wyoming's proposed rule language clarifies that a person listed in AVS may request an informal explanation from the AVS office at any time, but does not include language requiring a response to such a request within 14 days. Consequently, we are not approving Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(C).

6. Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(F); Written Agency Decision on Challenges to Ownership or Control Listings or Findings.

In response to Item F.4 of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter, Wyoming revised its rules at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(F) to include State counterpart provisions to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.28(a)-(f) that address the requirements for written agency decisions on challenges to ownership or control listings or findings.

OSMRE replied in a letter dated April 9, 2013, that Wyoming's newly-proposed rule language is consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at § 773.28(a)-(d). However, Wyoming's proposed rule requires additional clarifying language with respect to appeals of written decisions to be consistent with and no less effective than the Federal counterpart rule at 30 CFR 773.28(e). Specifically, Wyoming's proposed language merely states that “appeals of written decisions will be administered under the Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure,” but does not require that “all administrative remedies be exhausted under the procedures of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, the Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act and Chapter 12 of these Rules and Regulations before seeking judicial review.”

Similarly, we noted that the last sentence of proposed subsection (F) is very general and only states that “AVS shall be revised as necessary to reflect these decisions.” Consequently, to be consistent with and no less effective than the Federal counterpart rule at 30 CFR 773.28(f) we required Wyoming to further revise subsection (F) to state that, “following the Division's written decision or any decision by a reviewing administrative or judicial tribunal, the Division must review the information in AVS to determine if it is consistent with the decision. If it is not, the Division must promptly revise the information to reflect the decision.”

Wyoming responded in a letter dated July 2, 2013, and stated its belief that additional language discussing the exhaustion of remedies or referencing the appropriate Wyoming statutes is unnecessary. In particular, Wyoming explained that W.S. § 35-11-112 of the Environmental Quality Act details the powers and duties of the Environmental Quality Council, including the authority to “conduct hearing in any case contesting the administration or enforcement of any law, rule, regulation, standard or order issued or administered by the department or any division thereof (W.S. § 35-11-112(a)(iii)).” Wyoming also stated that the Rules of Practice and Procedure, as referenced in the proposed rule language, are the regulations which support the Environmental Quality Act, and notes that W.S. § 35-11-112(f) also requires that “[a]ll proceedings of the council shall be conducted in accordance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act.” For these reasons, Wyoming believes that if the sections of the Environmental Quality Act and the rules are read together, they address OSMRE's concerns with regard to the exhaustion of remedies and lack of statutory reference.

We disagree with Wyoming's rationale for not revising its rules. Wyoming's lone reference to the Rules of Practice and Procedure in its proposed rule language is very general and misleading. For example, the exhaustion of administrative remedies is only discussed in the context of informal conferences that are held by the DEQ Director for appeals of decisions, orders, or notices by the LQD Administrator or assessment of penalty by the agency. There is no mention of or discussion regarding judicial review. Moreover, Wyoming's claim that the relational basis between the Environmental Quality Act, the Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act serves to address the issues outlined in the concern letter is overly vague. To the contrary, Wyoming's explanation is precisely why additional clarifying language discussing the exhaustion of administrative remedies under specific state program procedures prior to seeking judicial review is necessary. We believe that it is not reasonable to expect a casual reader of the regulations to intuitively follow its complicated explanation regarding the relationship between the various Acts and procedures of the program and their application without providing more information.

Thus, Wyoming must revise its proposed rule language to address appeals of written agency decisions on challenges to ownership or control listings or findings and require that all administrative remedies must be exhausted under the procedures of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, the Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act and Chapter 12 of its Rules and Regulations before any person who receives a written agency decision can seek judicial review.

Wyoming also agreed that additional language should be added to Chapter 12, Section l(a)(xiv)(F) to clarify that AVS must be reviewed in light of any decisions by reviewing tribunals to determine whether AVS properly reflected those decisions. Wyoming stated that draft language addressing this concern will be provided in a future rulemaking and will be consistent with the suggested revisions discussed in the concern letter.

Based on the discussion above, we are not approving Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(F) concerning written agency decisions on challenges to ownership or control listings or findings. We also acknowledge Wyoming's commitment to revise the proposed rule language to clarify that the Division must review the information in AVS to ensure consistency with decisions by reviewing administrative or judicial tribunals.

7. Chapter 12, Section 1(b)(ii); Transfer, Assignment or Sale of Permit Rights (TAS).

Item I. of OSMRE's October 2, 2009, 732 letter instructs the reader to “See W.S. 35-11-408” regarding TAS. The 732 letter states that the 2007 rule clarifies at (a) and (d) of 30 CFR 774.17 that at the regulatory authority's discretion, a prospective successor in interest, with sufficient bond coverage, may continue to mine during the TAS process. This recognizes that an acquiring entity only becomes the successor in interest to the rights granted under the permit (under 30 CFR 705.1) after the regulatory authority approves the transfer, assignment, or sale.

In response to the 732 letter, Wyoming proposed to revise its existing rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(b) to apply all procedural requirements of the Act and the regulations relating to review, public participation, and approval or disapproval of permit applications, and permit term and conditions to permit transfer, assignment or sale of permit rights.

Similarly, Wyoming proposed to revise subsection (b)(ii) by applying the requirements imposed by W.S. § 35-11-408 regarding procedures for permit transfers to the assignment or sale of permit rights.

Wyoming also revised subsection (b)(ii)(B) by adding a cross reference to its rules at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i) through (iii), which is the counterpart to 30 CFR 778, regarding permit application requirements for all legal, financial, compliance and related information. Finally, Wyoming added language to require that a potential transferee's statement of qualifications include the name, address and permit number of the existing permit holder, which is the counterpart to 30 CFR 774.17(b)(1)(i).

OSMRE replied in a letter dated April 9, 2013, that Wyoming's attempt to apply the “permit transfer” requirements in its statute at W.S. § 35-11-408 to its proposed revisions to Chapter 12, Section 1(b)(ii) is incomplete because the rules do not address many of the specific application approval requirements for a transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights at 30 CFR 774.17.

For example, Wyoming's proposed rule changes do not include counterpart provisions to 30 CFR 774.17(b)(2) concerning advertisement requirements for newly-filed applications, subsection (d) regarding criteria for approval by the regulatory authority that allows a permittee to transfer, assign, or sell permit rights to a successor, subsection (e) concerning notification requirements, and subsection (f) regarding continued operation under an existing permit.

In addition, the language in W.S. § 35-11-408 and subsections (b)(ii)(A) and (B) of Wyoming's rules all refer to a “potential transferee” and do not address the assignment or sale of permit rights. Wyoming does not define “potential transferee” in its rules, nor does it have a counterpart to the Federal definition of “successor in interest” at 30 CFR 701.5 as it relates to transfer, assignment or sale of permit rights in 30 CFR 774.17. Accordingly, we required Wyoming to further revise its proposed rule language by submitting counterpart provisions to the specific transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights requirements at 30 CFR 774.17(a)-(f). We also recommended that Wyoming submit a counterpart to the Federal definition of “successor in interest” at 30 CFR 701.5.

Wyoming responded in a letter dated July 2, 2013, and agreed that additional revisions to its proposed rule are necessary. Wyoming also stated that it will draft proposed revisions to the rules to address the concerns noted in the concern letter.

Therefore, we are not approving Wyoming's proposed rule changes at Chapter 12, Section 1(b)(ii) concerning TAS. We also acknowledge Wyoming's commitment to revise the proposed rule language as discussed above in a future rulemaking effort.

D. Removal of Required Amendments

1. Required Amendment at 30 CFR 950.16(u); Public availability of permit applications and confidentiality.

Wyoming's current rule at Chapter 2, Section 4(a)(xvii) regarding procedures for protecting the confidentiality of qualified archeological information was approved by OSMRE in an October 29, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR 48987) notice as being no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.6(d)(3)(iii). However, in that same notice, we required Wyoming to further amend its regulations regarding procedures, including notice and opportunity to be heard for persons seeking disclosure, to ensure confidentiality of qualified information, which shall be clearly identified by the applicant and submitted separately from the remainder of the application as required by the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.13(d)(3). The Federal rules concerning public participation in permit processing were subsequently amended and redesignated as 30 CFR 773.6 in a Federal Register notice dated December 19, 2000 (65 FR 79663). Consequently, the Federal rules addressing confidentiality are now found at 30 CFR 773.6(d)(3).

In response to the required program amendment at 30 CFR 950.16(u), Wyoming proposed in a previous rulemaking action to further revise its rules at Chapter 2, Section 4(a)(xvii) regarding procedures for protecting the confidentiality of qualified archeological information by adding language clarifying that information related to the nature and location of archeological resources on public lands shall be submitted separately from other application materials. Wyoming also proposed language stating that requests to disclose confidential information shall be administered under the Department of Environmental Quality Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Wyoming Public Records Act, and the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act. Wyoming noted in its SOPR that the proposed revision was intended to clarify the procedures and identify the standards that apply to the administration of requests for confidential information that is submitted to the Land Quality Division. We found that although Wyoming's rationale for making the rule change was sound, the proposed language referencing its Public Records Act contained an incorrect citation wherein W.S. §§ 16-4-2001 thru 16-4-2005 (2007) was referenced rather than W.S. §§ 16-4-201 thru 16-4-205 (2007). For this reason, we did not approve Wyoming's proposed rule revision in a June 14, 2011, Federal Register notice (76 FR 34816, 34823) and the required program amendment at 30 CFR 950.16(u) remained outstanding.

Wyoming has now corrected the previously identified typographical error that resulted in the June 14, 2011, disapproval. We also note that Wyoming's counterpart provisions to 30 CFR 773.6(d)(3) regarding procedures to ensure confidentiality of qualified permit application information can be found in its existing statutes and other rules. For example, W.S. § 35-11-1101(a) of the referenced Wyoming Environmental Quality Act pertains to public availability of records and confidentiality and provides that any records, reports or information obtained under the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act or the rules, regulations and standards promulgated thereunder are available to the public, unless a satisfactory showing is made to the Director by any person that his records, reports or information or particular parts thereof would divulge trade secrets, if made public. If such a showing is satisfactorily made, the Director and administrators shall consider the records, reports or information or particular portions thereof, confidential in the administration of the Act.

In addition, provisions of the referenced Department of Environmental Quality Rules of Practice and Procedure (Chapters 1 and 2 regarding General Rules and Contested Case Proceedings) and the Wyoming Public Records Act (W.S. §§ 16-4-201-205) fully explain the administrative procedures related to requests to disclose confidential information, including notice and opportunity to be heard, that apply to persons both seeking and opposing the disclosure of such information. These statutes and rules, taken together, include procedures that ensure the confidentiality of qualified confidential information, which shall be clearly identified by the applicant and submitted separately from the remainder of the application, and are no less effective than the Federal requirements regarding confidentiality at 30 CFR 773.6(d)(3). For these reasons, we are approving Wyoming's proposed rule change and are removing the required program amendment at 30 CFR 950.16(u).

2. Required Amendments at 30 CFR 950.16(p); Fish and wildlife enhancement measures.

In a July 8, 1992 Federal Register (57 FR 30124), we placed a required program amendment on Wyoming at 30 CFR 950.16(p). The required program amendment discussed two distinct items. The first item required Wyoming to revise its rules at former Chapter 2, Section 3(b)(iv)(A) or otherwise amend its program to specify that, when fish and wildlife enhancement measures are not included in a proposed permit application, the applicant must provide a statement explaining why such measures are not practicable. The second item required that the rule be revised to clarify that fish and wildlife enhancement measures are not limited to revegetation efforts.

In response to questions from OSMRE regarding the underlying rationale for not revising or amending its rules in response to 30 CFR 950.16(p), Wyoming explained that it informally submitted rule language [in a January 28, 1993, letter] that was intended to resolve the required program amendment. By letter dated April 12, 1993, OSMRE found that the proposed language was less effective than the Federal counterpart regulations, but Wyoming never attempted to revise the language and promulgate it anytime after the 1993 comment letter. Consequently, in a subsequent rulemaking action Wyoming chose not to draft specific language to address the required amendment at 30 CFR 950.16(p). Rather, Wyoming provided additional clarification and suggested that the current requirements of Chapter 2, Section 5(a)(viii)(B) (former Chapter 2, Section 3(b)(iv)(B)) and Chapter 4, Section 2(r) (former Chapter 4, Section 3(o)), respectively, addressed the required program amendment. In a June 14, 2011, Federal Register notice (76 FR 34816, 34823) we found that that the additional information provided by Wyoming and the accompanying rationale did not address the concerns expressed by OSMRE in the April 12, 1993, comment letter and we did not accept Wyoming's explanation for not revising or amending its rules in response to 30 CFR 950.16(p). Accordingly, the program deficiencies specified in 30 CFR 950.16(p) regarding fish and wildlife enhancement measures remained outstanding.

In response to that disapproval and the required program amendment at 30 CFR 950.16(p), Wyoming now proposes to revise its rules at Chapter 2, Section 5(a)(viii) to require that, when fish and wildlife enhancement measures are not included in a surface coal mining permit application, the applicant shall affirmatively demonstrate why such measures are not practicable. In addition, Wyoming proposes to revise subsection (A) by adding the phrase “and other enhancement measures” to clarify that enhancement of fish and wildlife resources are not limited to revegetation efforts, but also includes the fish and wildlife performance standards found at Chapter 4, Section 2(r) of Wyoming's rules. Wyoming's proposed revisions make its rules at Chapter 2, Section 5(a)(viii)(A) consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 780.16(b)(3)(ii) and 784.21(b)(3)(ii) respectively, and we are removing the required program amendment at 30 CFR 950.16(p).

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments

We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM-2013-0002-0001), but did not receive any.

Federal Agency Comments

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies concerned with or having special expertise relevant to the Wyoming program amendment (Administrative Record No. WY-50-03). We received comments from two Federal agencies.

The United States Forest Service (USFS) commented in a February 27, 2013, email response (Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM-2013-0002-0010), and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) commented in a March 1, 2013, letter (Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM-2013-0002-0011).

The USFS responded that its comment is reflective of its role as a Federal land managing agency in the coal permitting process. The USFS then stated its support for the clarification in the formal amendment on using variable topsoil depths to facilitate species diversity during reclamation.

MSHA responded that it reviewed the proposed changes in the formal amendment, concurs with the proposed revisions, and had no further comment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii), we are required to seek the views of the EPA on the program amendment and obtain the written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSMRE requested comments on the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. WY-50-03). EPA did not respond to our request. Because the amendment does not relate to air or water quality standards, written concurrence from the EPA is not necessary.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. Although the amendment will not have an effect on historic properties, on January 31, 2013, we requested comments on Wyoming's amendment from the SHPO and ACHP (Administrative Record Nos. WY-50-04 and WY-50-05), but neither responded to our request.

V. OSMRE's Decision

Based on the above findings, we approve, with certain exceptions, Wyoming's January 8, 2013, amendment. We do not approve the following provisions or parts of provisions.

As discussed in Finding No. III.C.1, we are not approving Wyoming's proposed rule changes that omit the term “surface” from its rules in Chapters 1 and 2.

As discussed in Finding No. III.C.2, we are not approving Wyoming's revised rule at Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(i)(B) concerning requirements for providing applicant and operator permit history information.

As discussed in Finding No. III.C.3, we are not approving Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(x)(D)(I) regarding unanticipated events or conditions at remining sites.

As discussed in Finding No. III.C.4, we are not approving Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(viii)(B) concerning final compliance review of an applicant's or operator's permit history.

As discussed in Finding No. III.C.5, we are not approving Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(C) concerning challenges to ownership or control listings in AVS.

As discussed in Finding No. III.C.6, we are not approving Wyoming's newly-proposed rule at Chapter 12, Section 1(a)(xiv)(F) concerning written agency decisions on challenges to ownership or control listings or findings.

As discussed in Finding No. III.C.7, we are not approving Wyoming's proposed rule changes at Chapter 12, Section 1(b)(ii) regarding Transfer, Assignment or Sale of Permit Rights.

We are removing existing required amendments and approving, as discussed in: Finding No. III.D.1, Chapter 2, Section 4(a)(xvii) concerning public availability of permit applications and confidentiality; and Finding No. III.D.2, Chapter 2, Section 5(a)(viii)(A) concerning fish and wildlife enhancement measures.

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 950, which codify decisions concerning the Wyoming program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrates that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

Effect of OSMRE's Decision

Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any change of an approved State program be submitted to OSMRE for review as a program amendment. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit any changes to approved State programs that are not approved by OSMRE. In the oversight of the Wyoming program, we will recognize only the statutes, regulations and other materials we have approved, together with any consistent implementing policies, directives and other materials. We will require Wyoming to enforce only the approved provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review

Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance dated October 12, 1993, the approval of state program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988. The Department determined that this Federal Register notice meets the criteria of Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, which is intended to ensure that the agency review its legislation and proposed regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; that the agency write its legislation and regulations to minimize litigation; and that the agency's legislation and regulations provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden reduction. Because section 3 focuses on the quality of Federal legislation and regulations, the Department limited its review under this Executive Order to the quality of this Federal Register notice and to changes to the Federal regulations. The review under this Executive Order did not extend to the language of the State regulatory program or to the program amendment that the State of Wyoming drafted.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule is not a “[p]olicy that [has] Federalism implications” as defined by section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 because it does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Instead, this rule approves an amendment to the Wyoming program submitted and drafted by that State. OSMRE reviewed the submission with fundamental federalism principles in mind as set forth in sections 2 and 3 of the Executive Order and with the principles of cooperative federalism set forth in SMCRA. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. 1201(f). As such, pursuant to section 503(a)(1) and (7) (30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7)), OSMRE reviewed the program amendment to ensure that it is “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA and “consistent with” the regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way.

Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy

Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 CFR U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) et seq.).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 950

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: September 19, 2017. David Berry, Regional Director, Western Region.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 950 is amended as set forth below:

PART 950—WYOMING 1. The authority citation for part 950 continues to read as follows: Authority:

30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 950.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by “Date of Final Publication” to read as follows:
§ 950.15 Approval of Wyoming regulatory program amendments. Original amendment
  • submission date
  • Date of final
  • publication
  • Citation/description
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * January 8, 2013 December 7, 2017 Chapter 1 (Title); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(i); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(u)(ii); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(aw); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(az); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(br); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(bz); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(ca); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(cg); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(co); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(cr); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(cv); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(dd); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(df); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(ds); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(ez); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(fi); Chap. 1, Sec. 2(fs); Chap. 1, Sec. 3(b)(i) and (c); Chap. 2, Sec. 1(a); Chap. 2, Sec. 1(c); Chap. 2, Sec. 2(a); Chap. 2, Sec. 2(a)(i)(C)-(E); Chap. 2, Sec. 2(a)(i)(F); Chap. 2, Sec. 2(a)(i)(G); Chap. 2, Sec. 2(a)(ii)(A)(II) and (III); Chap. 2, Sec. 2(a)(ii)(B); Chap. 2, Sec. 2(a)(iv); Chap. 2, Sec. 2(a)(v)(A) (I)(2.) and (III); Chap. 2, Sec. 4(a)(xvii); Chap. 2, Sec. 5(a)(viii)(A); Chapter 4 (Title); Chap. 4, Sec. 2(c)(v)(A); Chap. 4, Sec. 2(l)(ii)(F); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a)(viii); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a) (viii)(A) and (C); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a)(ix)(A)-(F); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a)(x)(A)-(C); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a)(x)(D) (II)-(IV); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a)(xi); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a)(xii); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a)(xiii) (A)-(C); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a)(xiv)(A, B, D, and (E); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(a)(xiv)(G) (I)-(IX); Chap. 12, Sec. 1(b); Chap. 16, Sec. 2(h); Chap. 16, Sec. 2(j); also all minor punctuation, grammatical, and codification changes.
    § 950.16 [Amended]
    3. Section 950.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (p) and (u).
    [FR Doc. 2017-26432 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0595] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary interim rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges) Bridge across Jamaica Bay (Rockaway Inlet), mile 3.0, at Queens, NY. This temporary interim rule is necessary to accomodate Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) (the owner of the Marine Parkway Bridge) unexpected emergency repairs requiring a complete closure of the Bridge and an extension of time for their completion. The active deviation allows for opening of the bridge with two-hours of advance notice and expires at the 180th day. Existing federal regulations do not allow back-to-back deviations.

    DATES:

    This temporary interim rule is effective without actual notice from December 7, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on May 25, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on November 27, 2017 until December 7, 2017.

    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments or view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-2017-0595 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary final rule, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On July 6, 2017, we published a temporary deviation entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Marine Parkway Bridge, Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY” in the Federal Register (82 FR 31255). Although we did not request public comments, we conducted a public outreach and received no objections to the temporary deviation. No complaints have been submitted during the current temporary deviation's operation.

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. During the recent replacement/rehabilitation of lift span systems, water was discovered inside the power and communication cables from the main electrical rooms on the lower level of the towers to the machinery rooms at the tops of the towers. In addition, structural steel for riser conduit support is also in need of immediate repairs and/or replacement. We must modify the opration schedule of the Bridge by November 27, 2017 to allow the bridge owner to conduct emergency repairs, but we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the modification.

    We are issuing this rule and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and for the reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Marine Parkway Bridge across Jamaica Bay, mile 3.0, at Queens, New York. The Marine Parkway Bridge is a vertical lift bridge offering mariners a vertical clearance of 55 feet at mean high water and 59 feet at mean low water in the closed position.

    The normal operating schedule for the Bridge is listed at 33 CFR 117.795(a). MTA, the bridge owner, has requested this modification as additional time is required to perform the emergency repairs as described above.

    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational traffic as well as commercial vessels, largely tug and barge combinations. The 55 foot vertical clearance while the bridge is in the closed position offers the bulk of commercial traffic sufficient room to transit under the bridge in the closed position. During the time period of October 2016 to October 2017, there have been twelve (12) scheduled bridge openings for commercial vessel transit, two of which were cancelled prior to operation. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.

    IV. Discussion of the Temporary Interim Rule

    The Coast Guard has issued a Temporary Interim Rule from the operating schedule that governs the the Marine Parkway Bridge across Jamaica Bay, mile 3.0, at Queens, New York, in order to complete emergency repairs. The rule is necessary to accommodate the completion of the emergency repairs before the next boating season begins. This rule allows the bridge to remain in the closed position from 12:01 a.m. on November 27, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on May 25, 2018.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the emergency bridge closure period is in the winter season and the majority of vessels will be able to successfully transit through the draw of the bridge without an opening.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator due to the clearance level while in the closed position and the fact the rule would be applied during at a time of year when vessel traffic is at its lowest.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

    Documents mentioned in this Temporary Interim Rule as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. In § 117.795, effective from December 7, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on May 25, 2018, suspend paragraph (a) and add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 117.795 Jamaica Bay and connecting waterways.

    (d) The draw of the Marine Parkway Bridge, mile 3.0 over Rockaway Inlet, will not open for the passage of the vessels. The drawbridge will return to its regular operating schedule on May 26, 2018.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. S.D. Poulin, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26431 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0592; FRL-9971-41-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Amendment to Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone; Withdrawal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Due to adverse comments received, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the October 16, 2017 direct final rule that approved a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia to incorporate by reference the most recent federal ambient air quality standard for ozone into Virginia's SIP. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comments by November 15, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received adverse comments. EPA will address comments received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also published on October 16, 2017. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

    DATES:

    The direct final rule published at 82 FR 47985 on October 16, 2017 is withdrawn as of December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gavin Huang, (215) 814-2042, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 25, 2016, the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision sought to incorporate the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) promulgated by EPA on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292) into the Virginia SIP. In the direct final rule published on October 16, 2017 (82 FR 47985), EPA stated that if EPA received adverse comments by November 15, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received adverse comments from anonymous commenters.

    Because adverse comments were received, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule approving the revisions to the Virginia SIP that incorporates the 2015 ozone NAAQS promulgated by EPA on October 16, 2017 (82 FR 47985). EPA will respond to the adverse comments in a separate final rulemaking action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III. Accordingly, the amendment to § 52.2420(c) published on October 16, 2017 (82 FR 47985), which was to become effective December 15, 2017, is withdrawn as of December 7, 2017.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26303 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0192; FRL-9971-04-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Emissions Banking and Trading Programs for Area and Mobile Sources AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) Emissions Banking and Trading Programs submitted on October 10, 2017. Specifically, we are approving revisions that clarify and expand the existing provisions for the generation and use of emission credits from area and mobile sources.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0192. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adina Wiley, 214-665-2115, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our June 8, 2017 proposal (82 FR 26634). In that document we proposed to approve via parallel processing the proposed revisions to the Texas Emissions Banking and Trading Programs for the generation and use of emission credits from area and mobile sources. We preliminarily determined that the proposed revisions were consistent with the CAA and the EPA's regulations and guidance for emissions trading.

    Under the EPA's “parallel processing” procedure, the EPA proposes a rulemaking action on a proposed SIP revision concurrently with the State's public review process. If the State's proposed SIP revision is not significantly changed, the EPA will finalize the rulemaking on the SIP revision as proposed after responding to any submitted comments. Final rulemaking action by the EPA will occur only after the final SIP revision has been fully adopted by the TCEQ and submitted formally to the EPA for approval as a revision to the Texas SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.

    The TCEQ completed their state rulemaking process and adopted revisions on September 20, 2017. The TCEQ submitted these adopted changes as a revision to the Texas SIP on October 10, 2017. The EPA has evaluated the State's final SIP revision for any changes made from the time of proposal. Our evaluation indicates that the TCEQ made two types of revisions at adoption. First, the TCEQ made several non-substantive revisions to correct grammar, internal cross-references, and citations consistent with the Texas Register formatting guidance. The EPA has evaluated these non-substantive revisions and determined that they do not make any material changes to the regulations we proposed to approve. The TCEQ also made several substantive revisions at adoption that the EPA has evaluated and classified as logical outgrowth from our proposal. The EPA's evaluation of the adopted revisions is included in the “Addendum to the Technical Support Document” for EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0192, available in the rulemaking docket.

    The EPA is proceeding with our final approval of the October 10, 2017, revisions to the Texas SIP, consistent with the parallel processing provisions in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal. As such, we are proceeding with our final approval because the submitted final regulations adopted by the state do not alter our rationale for proposal presented in our June 8, 2017 proposed rulemaking.

    II. Final Action

    The EPA has determined that the October 10, 2017, revisions to the Texas SIP are consistent with the CAA and the EPA's policy and guidance on emissions trading. Therefore, under section 110 of the Act, the EPA approves the following revisions to the Texas SIP that were adopted on September 20, 2017, and submitted to the EPA on October 10, 2017:

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.300;

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.302;

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.303;

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.304;

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.306;

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.370;

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.372;

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.373;

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.374; and

    • Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.376.

    III. 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 revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Final Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 6 Office (please contact Adina Wiley for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation (62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    • 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 5, 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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 SS—Texas 2. In § 52.2270(c) the table titled “EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP” is amended by revising the entries for Sections 101.300, 101.302, 101.303, 101.304, 101.306, 101.370, 101.372, 101.373, 101.374, and 101.376 to read as follows:
    § 52.2270 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP State citation Title/subject State
  • approval/
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules *         *         *         *         *         *         * Subchapter H—Emissions Banking and Trading Division 1—Emission Credit Program Section 101.300 Definitions 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 101.302 General Provisions 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 101.303 Emission Reduction Credit Generation and Certification 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 101.304 Mobile Emission Reduction Credit Generation and Certification 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 101.306 Emission Credit Use 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Division 4—Discrete Emission Credit Program Section 101.370 Definitions 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 101.372 General Provisions 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 101.373 Discrete Emission Reduction Credit Generation and Certification 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 101.374 Mobile Discrete Emission Reduction Credit Generation and Certification 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 101.376 Discrete Emission Credit Use 09/20/2017 12/7/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-26342 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8509] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: Table 3—Distance to Relevant Underwater Sound Tresholds and Areas of Ensonification State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of
  • sale of flood insurance in community
  • Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain
  • Federal
  • assistance
  • no longer
  • available in
  • SFHAs
  • Region II New Jersey: Beverly, City of, Burlington County 340086 February 7, 1975, Emerg; December 23, 1977, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. Dec. 21, 2017 Dec. 21, 2017. Bordentown, City of, Burlington County 340087 May 16, 1975, Emerg; February 17, 1982, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do *   Do. Bordentown, Township of, Burlington County 340088 August 8, 1975, Emerg; April 15, 1982, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Burlington, Township of, Burlington County 340090 July 29, 1975, Emerg; February 17, 1982, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Chesterfield, Township of, Burlington County 340091 June 13, 1975, Emerg; January 21, 1983, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Cinnaminson, Township of, Burlington County 340092 November 19, 1971, Emerg; May 15, 1978, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Delanco, Township of, Burlington County 340093 June 27, 1975, Emerg; September 28, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Delran, Township of, Burlington County 340094 March 24, 1972, Emerg; May 2, 1977, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Eastampton, Township of, Burlington County 340095 March 24, 1972, Emerg; September 14, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Edgewater Park, Township of, Burlington County 340096 December 10, 1974, Emerg; May 25, 1978, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Florence, Township of, Burlington County 340098 September 5, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1982, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Hainesport, Township of, Burlington County 340099 June 20, 1975, Emerg; July 16, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Maple Shade, Township of, Burlington County 340101 July 11, 1975, Emerg; December 18, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Medford, Township of, Burlington County 340104 June 22, 1973, Emerg; August 15, 1983, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Medford Lakes, Borough of, Burlington County 340103 January 3, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Moorestown, Township of, Burlington County 340105 February 11, 1972, Emerg; September 15, 1978, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Mount Holly, Township of, Burlington County 340106 March 17, 1972, Emerg; August 1, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Mount Laurel, Township of, Burlington County 340107 February 18, 1972, Emerg; March 2, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. New Hanover, Township of, Burlington County 340108 July 29, 1975, Emerg; May 11, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Riverton, Borough of, Burlington County 340114 March 31, 1972, Emerg; April 15, 1977, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Shamong, Township of, Burlington County 340534 March 28, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Southampton, Township of, Burlington County 340115 January 14, 1972, Emerg; March 4, 1980, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Springfield, Township of, Burlington County 340116 August 16, 1976, Emerg; January 28, 1983, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Washington, Township of, Burlington County 340117 April 14, 1975, Emerg; December 15, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Willingboro, Township of, Burlington County 340119 September 15, 1972, Emerg; July 2, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Woodland, Township of, Burlington County 340551 February 19, 1976, Emerg; January 20, 1982, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Wrightstown, Borough of, Burlington County 340120 December 16, 1975, Emerg; May 11, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Region IV Georgia: Camden County, Unincorporated Areas 130262 January 20, 1976, Emerg; June 1, 1984, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Effingham County, Unincorporated Areas 130076 November 28, 1975, Emerg; March 18, 1987, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Kingsland, City of, Camden County 130238 June 23, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1984, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Rincon, City of, Effingham County 130426 November 5, 1976, Emerg; February 19, 1987, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Saint Marys, City of, Camden County 130027 May 30, 1974, Emerg; June 1, 1984, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Woodbine, City of, Camden County 130241 August 7, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1984, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Kentucky: Anderson County, Unincorporated Areas 210002 November 10, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Berea, City of, Madison County 210156 April 22, 1975, Emerg; September 30, 1988, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Carroll County, Unincorporated Areas 210045 March 26, 1997, Emerg; September 1, 1998, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Carrollton, City of, Carroll County 210232 March 20, 1975, Emerg; September 4, 1985, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Clark County, Unincorporated Areas 210278 May 13, 1976, Emerg; December 4, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Frankfort, City of, Franklin County 210075 April 23, 1974, Emerg; July 2, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Franklin County, Unincorporated Areas 210280 January 23, 1976, Emerg; September 30, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Garrard County, Unincorporated Areas 210081 February 27, 1987, Emerg; September 1, 1989, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Georgetown, City of, Scott County 210208 June 25, 1975, Emerg; February 4, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Gratz, City of, Owen County 210321 June 18, 1976, Emerg; August 19, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Henry County, Unincorporated Areas 210110 December 20, 1978, Emerg; January 1, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Jessamine County, Unincorporated Areas 210125 April 16, 1973, Emerg; August 1, 1978, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Lawrenceburg, City of, Anderson County 210003 August 21, 1975, Emerg; December 14, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Fayette County 210067 August 17, 1973, Emerg; September 28, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Madison County, Unincorporated Areas 210342 September 19, 1989, Emerg; September 28, 1990, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Mercer County, Unincorporated Areas 210306 November 22, 1974, Emerg; October 18, 1988, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Midway, City of, Woodford County 210477 N/A, Emerg; September 17, 2008, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Monterey, City of, Owen County 210295 April 20, 1976, Emerg; August 5, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Nicholasville, City of, Jessamine County 210126 June 11, 1975, Emerg; April 17, 1989, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Owen County, Unincorporated Areas 210186 May 2, 1997, Emerg; July 1, 1999, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Prestonville, City of, Carroll County 210047 August 2, 1976, Emerg; September 18, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Richmond, City of, Madison County 210157 June 20, 1975, Emerg; September 18, 1985, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Scott County, Unincorporated Areas 210207 August 14, 1975, Emerg; September 30, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Versailles, City of, Woodford County 210231 April 21, 1989, Emerg; May 1, 1990, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Wilmore, City of, Jessamine County 210311 January 17, 1975, Emerg; November 5, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Woodford County, Unincorporated Areas 210230 March 30, 1973, Emerg; June 1, 1978, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Worthville, City of, Carroll County 210049 May 24, 1976, Emerg; July 17, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Mississippi: Biloxi, City of, Harrison County 285252 June 30, 1970, Emerg; September 11, 1970, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Gautier, City of, Jackson County 280332 November 13, 1986, Emerg; November 13, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Gulfport, City of, Harrison County 285253 May 29, 1970, Emerg; September 11, 1970, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Harrison County, Unincorporated Areas 285255 July 17, 1970, Emerg; June 15, 1978, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Jackson County, Unincorporated Areas 285256 June 30, 1970, Emerg; April 3, 1978, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. South Carolina: Anderson, City of, Anderson County 450014 November 2, 1973, Emerg; December 16, 1980, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Anderson County, Unincorporated Areas 450013 July 2, 1975, Emerg; January 2, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Arcadia Lakes, Town of, Richland County 450171 May 27, 1975, Emerg; November 19, 1980, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Blythewood, Town of, Fairfield and Richland Counties 450258 N/A, Emerg; November 30, 2011, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Cayce, City of, Lexington and Richland Counties 450131 February 5, 1974, Emerg; May 1, 1980, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Clemson, City of, Anderson and Pickens Counties 450238 September 22, 1980, Emerg; February 17, 1988, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Colleton County, Unincorporated Areas 450056 June 18, 1975, Emerg; April 17, 1987, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Columbia, City of, Lexington and Richland Counties 450172 January 16, 1974, Emerg; September 2, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Cottageville, Town of, Colleton County 450253 N/A, Emerg; July 10, 2012, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Eastover, Town of, Richland County 450173 June 26, 1975, Emerg; September 30, 1988, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Edisto Beach, Town of, Colleton County 455414 March 19, 1971, Emerg; April 9, 1971, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Forest Acres, City of, Richland County 450174 July 19, 1974, Emerg; November 5, 1980, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Pickens, City of, Pickens County 450169 October 7, 1974, Emerg; June 25, 1976, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Pickens County, Unincorporated Areas 450166 April 2, 1974, Emerg; July 19, 1982, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Pendleton, Town of, Anderson County 450019 October 7, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1980, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Richland County, Unincorporated Areas 450170 September 20, 1974, Emerg; November 4, 1981, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Seneca, City of, Oconee County 450158 July 24, 1975, Emerg; December 16, 1977, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Six Mile, Town of, Pickens County 450178 N/A, Emerg; May 8, 2008, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Walhalla, City of, Oconee County 450159 May 2, 1975, Emerg; June 17, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Walterboro, City of, Colleton County 450058 April 2, 1975, Emerg; April 17, 1987, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Williams, Town of, Colleton County 450059 February 3, 1976, Emerg; July 17, 1986, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Region VI Louisiana: Saint Bernard Parish, Unincorporated Areas 225204 March 12, 1970, Emerg; March 13, 1970, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Texas: Bowie County, Unincorporated Areas 481194 February 17, 1981, Emerg; September 27, 1991, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Fort Bend County, Unincorporated Areas 480228 March 19, 1987, Emerg; March 19, 1987, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Kendleton, City of, Fort Bend County 481551 N/A, Emerg; September 15, 2001, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Leary, City of, Bowie County 481142 May 28, 2010, Emerg; October 19, 2010, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Nash, City of, Bowie County 480058 April 7, 1975, Emerg; June 21, 1977, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Rosenberg, City of, Fort Bend County 480232 July 21, 1975, Emerg; December 4, 1984, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Texarkana, City of, Bowie County 480060 February 18, 1972, Emerg; March 1, 1979, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Wake Village, City of, Bowie County 480061 September 24, 1974, Emerg; October 15, 1985, Reg; December 21, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. ......do =Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: November 22, 2017. Eric Letvin, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26328 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 17-187, RM-11792; DA 17-1062] Television Broadcasting Services; Anchorage, Alaska AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule, correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the Federal Register of November 17, 2017, concerning the Commission's grant of the request by Gray Television License, LLC (Gray) to substitute channel 7 for channel 5 for station KYES-TV, Anchorage, Alaska. The document contained the incorrect effective date.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joyce Bernstein, [email protected], Media Bureau, (202) 418-1647.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 17, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-24944, on page 54301, in the second column, correct the DATES caption to read:

    DATES: This rule is effective December 7, 2017. Federal Communications Commission. Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26312 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 234 Thursday, December 7, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 27 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1130; Notice No. 27-043-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 Helicopters; Installation of Garmin International, Inc., Autopilot System AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    We propose special conditions for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopters. These helicopters as modified by Garmin International, Inc., (Garmin) will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the Garmin Flight Control (GFC) 600H autopilot with stability and control augmentation system (AP/SCAS). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before January 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2017-1130] using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

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

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George Harrum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovations Division, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-4087; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On October 10, 2016, Garmin applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to install a GFC 600H AP/SCAS in Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopters. The Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopters are 14 CFR part 27 normal category, single turbine engine, conventional helicopters designed for civil operation. These helicopter models are capable of carrying up to five passengers with one pilot and have a maximum gross weight of up to 5,220 pounds, depending on the model configuration. The major design features include a 3-blade, fully articulated main rotor, an anti-torque tail rotor system, a skid landing gear, and a visual flight rule basic avionics configuration.

    Garmin proposes to modify these model helicopters by installing a SCAS with autopilot functions in 2 or 3 axes, depending on the number of servos installed. The possible failure conditions for this system, and their effect on the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopter, are more severe than those envisioned by the present rules. The present 14 CFR 27.1309(b) and (c) regulations do not adequately address the safety requirements for systems whose failures could result in “catastrophic” or “hazardous/severe-major” failure conditions, or for complex systems whose failures could result in “major” failure conditions. When these rules were promulgated, it was not envisioned that a normal category rotorcraft would use systems that are complex or whose failure could result in “catastrophic” or “hazardous/severe-major” effects on the rotorcraft. This is particularly true with the application of new technology, new application of standard technology, or other applications not envisioned by the rule that affect safety. The Garmin AP/SCAS controls rotorcraft flight control surfaces. Possible failure modes exhibited by this system could result in a catastrophic event.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under 14 CFR 21.101 and 21.115, Garmin must show that the Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopters, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. H9EU or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. H9EU are as follows:

    14 CFR 21.29 and part 27 effective February 1, 1965, plus Amendments 27-1 through 27-10.

    For aircraft incorporating mod. OP3369 (2370 kg/5225 lb mass extension), the following 14 CFR part 27 Amendments 27-1 through 27-40 are replacing the same requirement from the certification basis above: 27 § 1; § 21; § 25; § 27; § 33; § 45; § 51; § 65; § 71; § 73; § 75; § 79; § 141; § 143; § 173; § 175; § 177; § 241; § 301; § 303; § 305; § 307; § 309; § 321; § 337; § 339; § 341; § 351; § 471; § 473; § 501; § 505; § 521; § 547; § 549; § 563(b); § 571; § 602; § 661; § 663; § 695; § 723; § 725; § 727; § 737; § 751; § 753; § 801(b)(d); § 927(c); § 1041; § 1043; § 1045; § 1301; § 1501; § 1519; § 1529; § 1581; § 1583; § 1585; § 1587; § 1589.

    For AS350B3 aircraft incorporating mod. OP-4605 (installation of a fuel system improving crashworthiness), 14 CFR 27.561(c) at Amendment 27-32 replaces the same requirement from the certification basis above for the following elements of the fuel tank lower structure affected by this modification: Cradles, longitudinal beams, X-stops and rods.

    Additionally, Garmin must comply with the equivalent level of safety findings, exemptions, and special conditions prescribed by the Administrator as part of the certification basis.

    The Administrator has determined the applicable airworthiness regulations (that is, 14 CFR part 27), as they pertain to this STC, do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopters because of a novel or unusual design feature. Therefore, we propose to prescribe these special conditions under § 21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for an STC to change any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, Garmin must show that the Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopters, as changed, comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: A GFC 600H AP/SCAS. This GFC 600H AP/SCAS performs non-critical control functions. The GFC 600H AP/SCAS is a two or three axis system with the following novel functions: Limit cueing, level mode, and hover assist.

    Discussion

    The proposed special condition clarifies the requirement to perform a proper failure analysis and also recognizes that the severity of failures can vary. Current industry standards and practices recognize five failure condition categories: Catastrophic, Hazardous, Major, Minor, and No-Safety Effect. The proposed special condition addresses the safety requirements for systems whose failures could result in catastrophic or hazardous/severe-major failure conditions and for complex systems whose failures could result in major failure conditions.

    To comply with the provisions of the special conditions, we propose to require that Garmin provide the FAA with a systems safety assessment (SSA) for the final GFC 600H AP/SCAS installation configuration that will adequately address the safety objectives established by a functional hazard assessment (FHA) and a preliminary system safety assessment (PSSA), including the fault tree analysis (FTA). This will ensure that all failure conditions and their resulting effects are adequately addressed for the installed GFC 600H AP/SCAS. The SSA process, FHA, PSSA, and FTA are all parts of the overall safety assessment process discussed in FAA Advisory Circular 27-1B, Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft, and Society of Automotive Engineers document Aerospace Recommended Practice 4761, Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment.

    These proposed special conditions would require that the GFC 600H AP/SCAS installed on Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and Model AS350B3 helicopters meet the requirements to adequately address the failure effects identified by the FHA, and subsequently verified by the SSA, within the defined design integrity requirements.

    Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopters. Should Garmin apply at a later date for an STC to modify any other model included on Type Certificate Number H9EU to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model helicopters. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 and AS350B3 helicopters modified by Garmin International, Inc. (Garmin).

    Instead of the requirements of 14 CFR 27.1309(b) and (c), the following must be met for certification of the Garmin Flight Control 600H autopilot with stability and control augmentation system:

    (a) The equipment and systems must be designed and installed so that any equipment and system does not adversely affect the safety of the rotorcraft or its occupants.

    (b) The rotorcraft systems and associated components considered separately and in relation to other systems, must be designed and installed so that:

    (1) The occurrence of any catastrophic failure condition is extremely improbable; (2) The occurrence of any hazardous failure condition is extremely remote; and (3) The occurrence of any major failure condition is remote. (c) Information concerning an unsafe system operating condition must be provided in a timely manner to the crew to enable them to take appropriate corrective action. An appropriate alert must be provided if immediate pilot awareness and immediate or subsequent corrective action is required. Systems and controls, including indications and annunciations, must be designed to minimize crew errors which could create additional hazards. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on November 29, 2017. Larry M. Kelly, Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26420 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 29 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1129; Notice No. 29-042-SC] Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopter; Mode Annunciation AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    We propose special conditions for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS) functions that affect the pilot awareness of the flight control modes while operating the helicopter. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before January 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2017-XXXX] using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

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

    Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George Harrum, Aerospace Engineer, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-4087; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The aircraft is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,500 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 19 passengers and a crew of 2.

    The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a four-axis full authority digital FBW FCS that provides for aircraft control through pilot input and coupled flight director modes. Current regulations are inadequate in the area of pilot awareness of the flight control modes while operating the helicopter. The proposed special condition will require that suitable mode annunciation be provided to the flight crew for events that significantly change the operating mode of the system but do not merit the traditional warnings, cautions, and advisories.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendment 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 31, 2013, the effective date of application to the FAA.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the BHTI Model 525 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: A four-axis full authority digital FBW FCS. Pilot control inputs, through the mechanically linked cockpit controls (cyclic, collective, directional pedals), are transmitted electrically to each of the three Flight Control Computers (FCCs). The pilot control input signals are then processed and transmitted to the hydraulic flight control actuators which affect control of the main and tail rotors. The FCCs process the pilot control input signals depending on the flight control mode in affect.

    Discussion

    The current 14 CFR 29 standards do not provide adequate standards for pilot awareness of the flight control modes while operating the helicopter. The proposed special condition will require that suitable mode annunciation be provided to the flight crew for events that significantly change the operating mode of the system but do not merit the traditional warnings, cautions, and advisories.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters:

    Mode Annunciation: A means must be provided to indicate to the crew any mode that significantly changes or degrades the handling or operational characteristics of the rotorcraft.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on November 16, 2017. Larry M. Kelly, Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26418 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 24 [Docket No. TTB-2016-0010; Notice No. 164B; Re: Notice No. 164 and Notice No. 164A] RIN 1513-AB61 Wine Treating Materials and Related Regulations; Comment Period Extension AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is extending for an additional 90 days the recently-reopened comment period for Notice No. 164, Wine Treating Materials and Related Regulations, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2016. TTB is taking this action in response to a request from a wine industry trade association.

    DATES:

    Written comments on Notice No. 164 are now due on or before April 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send your comments on Notice No. 164 to one of the following addresses:

    https://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for Notice No. 164 as posted within Docket No. TTB-2016-0010 at Regulations.gov, the Federal e-rulemaking portal);

    U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or

    Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.

    See the Public Participation section of Notice No. 164 for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kara Fontaine, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone (202) 453-1039, ext. 103.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In Notice No. 164, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83752), the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) requested public comment on amendments to its regulations pertaining to the production of wine and in particular in regard to the permissible treatments that may be applied to wine and to juice from which wine is made. TTB issued the proposed amendments in response to requests from wine industry members to authorize certain wine treating materials and processes not currently authorized by TTB regulations. In Notice No. 164, TTB invited comments on the proposed regulatory changes and the wine treatments and materials issues addressed in that document. The 60-day comment period for Notice No. 164 originally closed on January 23, 2017. In Notice No. 164A, published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47167), TTB reopened the comment period for Notice No. 164 for an additional 90 days in response to industry member requests.

    On October 24, 2017, TTB received a letter via the Regulations.gov Web site posting for Notice No. 164 from the Wine Institute, a large wine industry trade association based in San Francisco, California, requesting a 90-day extension of the comment period on the wine treating materials regulatory amendments proposed in Notice No. 164. In its letter, the Wine Institute stated that its members required additional time to consider the “complex and far reaching” proposals contained in Notice No. 164, as well as the document's request for input on other regulatory issues. The Wine Institute stated that TTB reopened the comment period for Notice No. 164 during the recent Northern California wildfires, which caused many of its members to experience calamitous personal and business losses. The Wine Institute also noted that TTB's proposal is open for comment during the holiday season, when many stakeholders will be unavailable due to commercial and family commitments. The Wine Institute's letter is posted as Comment 13 to Notice No. 164 within Docket No. TTB-2016-0010 on the Regulations.gov Web site at https://www.regulations.gov).

    In response to this request, TTB is extending the comment period for Notice No. 164 for an additional 90 days. Therefore, comments on Notice No. 164 are now due on or before April 9, 2018. Comments on Notice No. 164 may be submitted as described above in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    Drafting Information

    Kara Fontaine of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice.

    Signed: November 17, 2017. John J. Manfreda, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26416 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0824; FRL-9971-63-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate Transport AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Ohio regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements concerning interstate transport provisions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0824 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. What is the background of this SIP submission? II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission? III. EPA's Review IV. What action is EPA taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), describing its infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, dated December 4, 2015. Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the portion of the submission dealing with interstate pollution transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as the “good neighbor” provision. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must submit “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” a plan that provides for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address. EPA commonly refers to such state plans as “infrastructure SIPs.”

    II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?

    EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in a October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and memoranda, including a September 13, 2013, guidance document titled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” (2013 guidance).

    The most recent relevant document was a memorandum published on March 17, 2016, titled “Information on the Interstate Transport “Good Neighbor” Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)” (2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes EPA's past approach to addressing interstate transport, and provides EPA's general review of relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides information relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) “good neighbor” provision in infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided in that memorandum.

    The 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional offices with future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in the United States based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring data and air quality modeling. The memorandum further describes how these projected potential design values can be used to help determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially address whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum explained that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. Accordingly, because the available data included 2017 and 2025 projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated through the CAMx photochemical model, the memorandum suggests approaches states might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at sites in 2021.

    For all but one monitor site in the eastern United States, the modeling data showed that monitors were expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results provided in the 2016 memorandum show that out of seven PM2.5 monitors located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, one monitor is expected to be above the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017. Further, that monitor (ID number 420030064) is projected to be above the NAAQS only under the model's maximum projected conditions (used in EPA's interstate transport framework to identify maintenance receptors), and is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS (along with all Allegheny County monitors) in 2025. The memorandum therefore indicates that under such a condition (where EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain in 2017) further analysis of the site should be performed to determine if the site may be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas). The memorandum also indicates that for certain states with incomplete ambient monitoring data, additional information including the latest available data, should be analyzed to determine whether there are potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported emissions. This rulemaking considers these analyses from Ohio, as well as additional analysis conducted by EPA during review of its submittal.

    III. EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of Ohio's December 4, 2015, SIP submission addressing the good neighbor provision requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). State plans must address four requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as “prongs”), including:

    —Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong one); —Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong two); —Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state (prong three); and —Protecting visibility in another state (prong four).

    This rulemaking is evaluating the December 4, 2015 submission, specific to prongs one and two of Ohio's interstate transport provisions in its PM2.5 infrastructure SIP. Prongs three and four will be evaluated in a separate rulemaking.

    EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal rulemakings. The four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently applied with respect to PM2.5 in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), designed to address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone standard.

    Ohio's December 4, 2015, submission indicates that the Ohio SIP contains the following major programs related to the interstate transport of pollution: Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapters 3745-16 (Stack Height Requirements); 3745-103 (Acid Rain Permits and Compliance); 3745-14 (Nitrogen Oxides—Budget Trading Program); and 3745-109 (Clean Air Interstate Rule). Ohio also indicates that sources in the state are complying with CSAPR. In addition, Ohio has responded to requests by the States of Indiana and West Virginia, implementing revisions to OAC 3724-18 (Hamilton County and Jefferson County) to alleviate modeled violations due, in part, to sources in Ohio.

    Ohio's submittal also contains a technical analysis of its interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS prepared in October 2015. The technical analysis studied Ohio sources' contribution to monitored PM2.5 air quality values in other states, and evaluated downwind areas which were most influenced by Ohio sources, and whether Ohio would need to take further steps to decrease its emissions (and therefore contribution) to those areas. Ohio's technical analysis considers CSAPR rule implementation, a review of then-current air quality design values, and other factors such as meteorology and state-wide emissions inventories. Through its technical analysis, Ohio determined that at the time of EPA's analysis of its CSAPR rule,1 sources in Ohio were projected to contribute more than the 1% screening threshold toward PM2.5 air quality at certain receptors PM2.5 air quality problems in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Ohio then used that information to evaluate the distance and geography of the downwind states potentially impacted by Ohio emissions. Ohio also examined the most recent air quality in those downwind states. (Based on distance and topographical considerations, Ohio's analysis did not focus on potential contribution to areas not attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2012-2014 monitor data in Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada or Hawaii.)

    1 Contained in the TSD for EPA's CSAPR rule (76 FR 48208). EPA's technical analysis included modeled emissions and air quality for 2012.

    Ohio completed its technical analysis before March 17, 2016, when, as discussed earlier, EPA released updated modeling projections for 2017 and 2025 annual PM2.5 design values meant to assist states in implementation of their 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS interstate transport SIPs. As discussed later, however, EPA's review of Ohio's submittal nevertheless concludes that the March 17, 2016, updated modeling projections data corroborate the findings of Ohio's technical analysis. In addition, certified annual PM2.5 design values recorded since Ohio's submittal further confirm Ohio's technical analysis.

    By looking at 2012-2014 annual PM2.5 design values, CSAPR-modeled design values, emissions inventory data, and other factors, Ohio's technical analysis shows that monitored air quality values in states Ohio potentially contributes to have trended downward and were in most cases were already lower than the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2012-2014 air quality data (the newest data available at the time of Ohio's technical analysis and submittal). Table 1 shows ambient monitoring data for the downwind states that Ohio identified as areas that could be affected by its emissions. The table contains county level annual average PM2.5 design value data for 2012-2014. In addition, data used for EPA's expanded review of PM2.5 design values that includes design values for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011-2013, 2013-2015, and 2014-2016 is included in the technical support document (TSD) in the docket, “[Technical Support Document for Docket #EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0824].” The TSD for this action also looks at air quality trends in Illinois and Pennsylvania, areas that required further review because of either missing data or monitored values recently near or above the NAAQS, by showing the areas' 2012-2014, 2013-2015, and 2014-2016 design values as well as yearly annual means from 2014 through 2016 for certain counties based on AQS data. EPA's expanded review, as discussed throughout this action, supports Ohio's conclusions drawn from the data shown in Table 1.

    Table 1—Monitored PM2.5 Air Quality in Counties That Ohio Potentially Contributes One Percent or More Toward PM2.5 Concentrations State County 2012-2014
  • Annual
  • PM2.5 DV
  • (µg/m 3)
  • 2013-2015
  • Annual
  • PM2.5 DV
  • (µg/m 3)
  • 2014-2016
  • Annual
  • PM2.5 DV
  • (µg/m 3)
  • Alabama Jefferson 11.3 11 11.2 Alabama Russell 10.7 10 9.7 Alabama Pulaski 11.7 10.7 10.3 Georgia Bibb 10.9 10.2 10.1 Georgia Clayton 10.3 10 9.9 Georgia Floyd 10.3 9.9 9.9 Georgia Fulton 11 10.5 10.4 Georgia Muscogee 10.2 9.6 9.6 Georgia Wilkinson 10.6 10 9.9 Illinois Champaign N/A N/A N/A Illinois Cook N/A N/A N/A Illinois Macon N/A N/A N/A Illinois Madison N/A N/A N/A Illinois Saint Clair N/A N/A N/A Indiana Clark 11.8 11.4 10.6 Indiana Dubois 10.9 10.6 9.8 Indiana Lake 11.5 11 10.1 Indiana Madison 9.8 9.6 9 Indiana Marion 11.8 11.7 11.4 Indiana Spencer 10.5 10.1 9.5 Indiana Vanderburgh 10.9 10.7 10.1 Indiana Vigo 10.6 10.3 9.7 Iowa Muscatine 10.8 10.4 9.4 Kentucky Bullitt New York Bronx 10.3 9.4 9 Pennsylvania Allegheny 13 12.6 12.8 Pennsylvania Beaver 11.3 10.8 10.1 Pennsylvania Cambria 11.6 11.7 10.7 Pennsylvania Chester 9.9 10 9.6 Pennsylvania Delaware 12.3 11.6 11.5 Pennsylvania Lancaster 11.6 11.2 12.8 Pennsylvania Lebanon 12.7 11.7 11.2 Pennsylvania Northampton 10.5 10 9.3 Pennsylvania Westmoreland 10.1 9.8 8.7 West Virginia Brooke 11.1 11.2 10.5 West Virginia Marshall 11.1 10.7 10.2 Texas El Paso 11 9.9 9.4 Wisconsin Eau Claire 7.9 7.5 7.1 * Value does not contain a complete year's worth of data.

    In all areas where three years of certified data exist to determine annual PM2.5 design values for 2012-2014, only three counties in Pennsylvania recorded values above the NAAQS: Allegheny, Delaware, and Lebanon counties (which will be discussed in detail below). Because of errors in protocol made during the recording and/or analysis of PM2.5 air quality monitors in several states (for example, improper maintenance of an air quality monitor or not following proper laboratory analysis procedures), the data from those monitors could not be quality assured or certified for use in determining those areas' PM2.5 design values. These data quality and certification issues were identified by EPA to have occurred between 2012 and 2015. Therefore, those states had missing annual PM2.5 design values for certain three-year periods. The PM2.5 monitoring data for the State of Illinois (the only state with data quality issues Ohio identified as contributing to) for all of 2012, 2013, and until July 2014 suffered from data quality/completion issues and therefore no current annual PM2.5 design values exist for Illinois. By making corrections in protocol at laboratories that review PM2.5 air monitor samples (for example, maintaining the laboratory's air temperature to within specified limits so as not to cause errors in PM sample analysis) and by rectifying other deficiencies identified by EPA, we have determined that these quality control issues have been fully resolved for Illinois (and all states referenced in this analysis). While Illinois has resolved its quality control issues, it has still not recorded three full years of certified data to be able to determine annual PM2.5 design values for its counties.

    EPA considered available data from monitors in Illinois for its analysis of Ohio's submittal. As noted, there is only partial year Illinois data for 2014. However, our review looks at the most recent valid data available, which are Illinois' recorded 2015-2016 annual average mean values for monitors in each county, to determine whether data and downward trends demonstrated in other states in Ohio's technical analysis are also demonstrated in Illinois. As discussed below, generally the data show a steady decline in annual PM2.5 concentrations across all sites in Illinois, with most counties' 2016 annual means well below the NAAQS. Table 2 shows the annual mean PM2.5 values for 2015 and 2016.

    Table 2—Annual Mean PM2.5 Values for Illinois, 2015-2016 County 2015 PM2.5
  • Annual mean
  • (µg/m 3)
  • 2016 PM2.5
  • Annual mean
  • (µg/m 3)
  • Champaign 8.6 7.6 Cook 12.5 9.4 DuPage 9 7.8 Hamilton 8.2 7.8 Jersey 7.7 * 7.9 Kane 8.9 8 Macon 8.7 7.8 Madison 10.4 9.1 McHenry 9.9 7.3 McLean 7.6 7.6 Peoria 8.6 7.6 Randolph 7.9 8 Rock Island 9.1 7.2 Sangamon 8.2 7.7 Saint Clair 10.7 10 Will 9.1 7.8 Winnebago 9.1 7.8 * Value does not contain a complete year's worth of data.

    Based upon our expanded review of these data to include valid PM2.5 design values for the years 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 (located in the TSD) and despite not having three complete recent years of certified, quality-assured monitoring data or annual PM2.5 design values—Illinois' air quality trends reflect what is shown across the nation: a general downward trend in ambient air concentrations, including at sites in the states that Ohio analyzed in its submittal. Only three Illinois counties reported 2010-2012 annual PM2.5 design values above the NAAQS: Cook, Madison, and Saint Clair counties. In Cook County, the 2010-2012 design value (which is the latest certified design value for the county), was 12.7 µg/m3, and despite a slight rise in 2015, the annual mean values have trended downward. Cook County's annual mean for that year was 9.4 µg/m3, representing a significant decline in monitored ambient PM2.5. For Madison County, the 2010-2012 PM2.5 design value was 13.5 µg/m3, and the 2014-2016 annual means show a trend downward from 12.9 µg/m3 to 9.1 µg/m3, a clear and continuous downward trend. For Saint Clair County, the 2010-2012 PM2.5 design value was 12.2 µg/m3, and the 2014-2016 annual means show a clear and continuous downward trend from 10.9 µg/m3 to 10 µg/m3. All other counties in Illinois were below the NAAQS, based both on their 2010-2012 PM2.5 design values and their recorded 2014-2016 annual mean concentrations. Therefore, EPA expects that all counties in Illinois will attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS without the need for additional PM2.5 reductions in Ohio.

    Ohio found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact that Ohio emissions potentially contribute to areas' monitored PM2.5 air quality, all but two areas in Pennsylvania (Allegheny and Delaware counties) were attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2012-2014 data. A review of 2013-2015 design values shows that all areas except for Allegheny County have attained the NAAQS. Our review also considers 2014-2016 design values, which show only Allegheny and Lancaster counties not meeting the NAAQS.

    Ohio's technical analysis focused on its contribution to Allegheny County because, in addition to being the closest county with monitored PM2.5 air quality above the NAAQS, it has the highest design values for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in all of the counties in Ohio's technical review. Ohio's technical review also looked at its impact on PM2.5 air quality in Delaware, Lancaster, and Lebanon counties in Pennsylvania and while its contribution to these areas was less than for Allegheny, Ohio identified these counties as ones it may contribute to based on the 2012 CSAPR modeling.

    EPA's review looked further into more recent and current PM2.5 monitor data in those counties. In Delaware and Lebanon counties, not only do the most recent PM2.5 monitor data show these counties are attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's PM2.5 modeling data for 2017 and 2025 do not indicate any nonattainment or maintenance issues in these counties. There is a clear downward trend in PM2.5 values in these counties. For Lancaster County, despite having a 2014-2016 design value that exceeds the NAAQS, there is a clear downward trend in the monitored PM2.5 air quality data that supports EPA's PM2.5 modeling that shows no nonattainment or maintenance problems for this county by 2021.

    The modeling information contained in EPA's March 17, 2016 memorandum shows that one monitor in Alleghany County, PA (the Liberty monitor, 420030064) may have a maintenance issue in 2017, but is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. A linear interpolation of the modeled design values to 2021 shows that the monitor is likely to both attain and maintain the standard by 2021. Emissions and air quality data trends help to corroborate this interpolation.

    Over the last decade, local and regional emissions reductions of primary PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxide (NOX), have led to large reductions in annual PM2.5 design values in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In 2007, all of Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitors exceeded the level of the 2012 NAAQS (the 2005-2007 annual average design values ranged from 12.9-19.8 µg/m3, as shown in Table 3). The 2014-2016 annual average PM2.5 design values now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 12.8 µg/m3) exceeds the health-based annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 µg/m3.

    EP07DE17.000

    The Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the NAAQS, and expected emissions reductions in the next four years will lead to additional reductions in measured PM2.5 concentrations. There are both local and regional components to the measured PM2.5 levels in Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh area. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from upwind states, particularly SO2 and NOX emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and NOX reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. Ohio's submittal indicates that Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will have decreased 166,000 tons between 2015-2017 as a result of CSAPR implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs) [see the TSD for more details]. Projected power plant closures and additional emissions controls in Pennsylvania and upwind states will help further reduce both direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission reductions will continue to occur from current on-the-books Federal and state regulations such as the Federal on-road and non-road vehicle programs, and various rules for major stationary emissions sources.

    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures, additional local reductions to both direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are expected to occur and should also contribute to further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitor concentrations. For example, significant SO2 reductions have recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill facilities in southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr SO2 NAAQS SIP.2 Reductions are largely due to declining sulfur content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG). Because this COG is burned at US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should contribute to much lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the immediate future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also projects lower SO2 emissions resulting from vehicle fuel standards, reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the Greater Pittsburgh region and several shutdowns of significant sources of emissions in Allegheny County.

    2http://www.achd.net/air/publichearing2017/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_5-1-2017.pdf.

    EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in emissions between 2017 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored PM2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021.

    In addition to local reductions projected to occur in Pennsylvania discussed above, Ohio indicated that its own state-wide SO2 emissions from the energy generation sector will have decreased by 148,000 tons, or about 50 percent of its 2014 emissions, between 2015 and 2017 as a result of CSAPR implementation across Ohio. Thus, the submittal shows that because of reductions from CSAPR implementation in Ohio and across the CSAPR states, emissions have trended downward nearly universally among PM2.5 air quality monitors. This trend is reinforced by looking at air quality data since Ohio's submittal, and by data in EPA's March 17, 2016, Memorandum.

    The conclusions of Ohio's analysis are consistent with EPA's March 17, 2016, Memorandum. All areas that Ohio sources potentially contribute to are expected to attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021. Ohio's analysis shows that through permanent and enforceable measures currently contained in its SIP, implementation of CSAPR from 2015-2017 and beyond, and other emissions reductions occurring in Ohio and in other states, monitored PM2.5 air quality in all identified areas that Ohio sources may impact will continue to improve, and that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Ohio's responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA is proposing that prongs one and two of the interstate pollution transport element of Ohio's infrastructure SIP are approvable.

    IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Ohio's December 4, 2015, submission certifying that the current Ohio SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth above. EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    • 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26291 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0211 FRL-9971-60-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Indiana regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act as a revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). Indiana has satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. Indiana has also met the requirements for a determination of the adequacy of its regional haze plan with its negative declaration submitted with the progress report.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0211 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3901, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

    I. Background II. EPA's Analysis of Indiana's Regional Haze Progress Report and Adequacy Determination III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report every five years that evaluates progress towards the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years after the submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.

    Indiana initially submitted its regional haze plan on January 14, 2011. The final corrected version was submitted on March 10, 2011. EPA finalized a limited approval of Indiana's regional haze plan into its SIP on June 11, 2012. 77 FR 32418. As part of the action, EPA also approved limits for the aluminum fabricating facility owned and operated by Alcoa, Inc. and located in Warrick County, Indiana, which were determined by EPA to satisfy the requirements for best available retrofit technology (BART).

    Indiana submitted its five-year progress report on March 30, 2016. This is a report on progress made in the first implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas outside of Indiana. Indiana does not have any Class I areas within its borders. This progress report SIP included a determination that Indiana's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the applicable requirements of the rule at 40 CFR 51.308.

    II. EPA's Analysis of Indiana's Regional Haze Progress Report and Adequacy Determination

    On March 30, 2016, Indiana submitted a revision to its regional haze SIP to address progress made in the first planning period towards RPGs for Class I areas that are affected by emissions from Indiana's sources. This progress report also included a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP.

    Even though Indiana has no Class I areas within its borders, the State reviewed technical analyses conducted by the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) and other regional planning organizations (RPOs) to determine which Class I areas are affected by Indiana's emissions. The five relevant RPOs are the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern Visibility Union (MANE-VU) for the Northeastern states, the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), MRPO, the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP), and Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). The following Class I areas in other states were identified as possibly being impacted by Indiana sources (77 FR 3975, January 26, 2012):

    Southeastern U.S. (VISTAS)—Sipsey Wilderness Area, AL; Mammoth Cave National Park, KY; Great Smoky Mountains National Park, NC and TN; James River Face Wilderness Area, VA; Shenandoah National Park, VA; and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness Areas, WV Eastern U.S. (MANE-VU)—Acadia National Park, ME; Moosehorn Wilderness Area, ME; Great Gulf Wilderness Area, NH; Brigantine Wilderness Area, NJ; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area, VT Northern U.S. (MRPO and CENRAP)—Isle Royale National Park, MI; Seney National Wildlife Refuge, MI; Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Area, MN; and Voyageurs National Park, MN South Central U.S. (CENRAP)—Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, MO; Mingo Wilderness Area, MO; Caney Creek Wilderness Area, AR; and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, AR A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs

    The following section includes EPA's analysis of Indiana's progress report submittal and an explanation of the basis of our proposed approval.

    1. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional Haze SIP

    In its progress report, Indiana summarized the implementation status of the control strategies that were included in its 2011 regional haze SIP, specifically, the status of the on-the-books emissions reduction measures in addition to reductions from federal regulatory programs such as: Tier 2 Vehicle Emissions and Gasoline Standards Rule; Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine and Highway Diesel Fuel Rule; Non-road Engine Diesel Fuel Rule (Tier 4); and Maximum Achievable Control Technology. In its regional haze strategy, Indiana did not rely on additional emissions controls from other states. Indiana also noted the following additional controls measures, which are expected to result in emissions reductions between 2011 and 2018, but were not relied upon in Indiana's Regional Haze SIP: 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (75 FR 35519, June 22, 2010); Mercury and Air Toxics Standard Rule (79 FR 68777, November 19, 2014); and Tier 3 Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standard Program (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014).

    In its regional haze SIP, Indiana relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet the sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) BART requirements for its electric generating units (EGUs) as well as to ensure reasonable progress. Indiana's progress report describes the litigation regarding CAIR and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that has had a substantial impact on EPA's review of the regional haze SIPs of many states.

    In 2005, EPA issued regulations allowing states to rely on CAIR to meet certain requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).1 A number of states, including Indiana, submitted regional haze SIPs consistent with these regulatory provisions. CAIR, however, was remanded (without vacatur) to EPA in 2008, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and replaced by CSAPR. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. However, numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.

    1 CAIR required certain states like Indiana to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).

    EPA finalized a limited approval of Indiana's regional haze SIP on June 11, 2012. 77 FR 39177. In a separate action, published on June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the Indiana regional haze SIP because of the state's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements, and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of Indiana and other states' regional haze plans. 77 FR 33642. The FIP relied on CSAPR to meet certain regional haze requirements, notwithstanding that CSAPR was stayed at the time. Following additional litigation and the lifting of the stay, EPA began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.

    Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control requirements for non-EGU sources in the state, one non-EGU source, the Alcoa facility in Warrick County, was identified as BART-eligible and shown to contribute significantly to visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states. EPA approved Indiana's alternative BART strategy of controlling emissions from a non-BART boiler unit in our June 11, 2012, limited approval of Indiana's regional haze SIP. 77 FR 34218.

    EPA proposes to conclude that Indiana has adequately addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP. Indiana describes the implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP, including the status of control measures to meet BART and reasonable progress requirements, the status of measures from on-the-book controls and the status of federal regulatory programs.

    2. Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved in the State Through Implementation of Measures

    In its progress report, Indiana discusses the emissions reductions resulting from the control strategies included in its 2011 regional haze SIP. As described above, throughout the litigation surrounding CAIR and CSAPR, EPA continued to implement CAIR. Thus, CAIR was in effect through the end of 2014.

    Indiana listed its EGUs' emissions of SO2 and NOX for 2005, 2009, and 2013, along with its CSAPR budgets. In the progress report, Indiana showed that 2013 state-wide SO2 emissions from EGUs were 268,217 tons, below the CSAPR budget of 285,424 tons. Indiana also showed that 2013 state-wide NOX emissions from EGUs were 103,048 tons, below the CSAPR budget of 109,726 tons. Indiana's SO2 and NOX EGU emissions for 2013 were 6% lower than the 2013 CSAPR budgets for both pollutants. Table 1 below summarizes the emission reductions reported by Indiana.

    Table 1—Indiana EGU Emissions Reported to the Clean Air Markets Program Division (CAMD) Year NOX
  • (tons)
  • NOX budget
  • (tons)
  • SO2
  • (tons)
  • SO2 budget
  • (tons)
  • 2005 210,646 870,812 2009 113,601 413,726 2013 103,048 109,726 268,217 285,424
    3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes for Each Mandatory Class I Federal Area in the State

    Indiana noted in its progress report that it does not have any Class I areas within its boundaries, and as the applicable provisions pertain only to states containing Class I areas, no further discussion is necessary. EPA concurs, and proposes to conclude that Indiana has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g).

    4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes of Visibility-Impairing Pollutants

    In its progress report, Indiana tracked changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants using its 2005 base emissions and projected 2018 emissions in its regional haze plan submitted in 2011. The progress report gives current annual emissions for SO2 and NOX that can be compared to the base emissions and 2018 projected emissions. Base emissions of SO2 in 2005 were 956,031 tons, with a 64 percent reduction to 346,429 tons in 2014. Indiana reported 2011 SO2 total emissions of 425,786 tons. The NOX base emissions in 2005 were 283,059 tons, with a 42 percent reduction to 164,520 tons in 2014. Indiana reported 2011 NOX emissions of 180,674 tons.

    Indiana noted that SO2 emissions have been reduced considerably between 2005 and 2014, based on actual reported emissions. These reductions were due primarily to regulations focused on reducing SO2 emissions from coal-burning power plants and other large sources, such as various types of boilers and incinerators, which are the largest emitters of SO2.

    The actual decrease in NOX emissions was not as substantial as the decrease in SO2 emissions between 2005 and 2014. This is because the NOX SIP call which significantly reduced NOX emissions took place in 2004 (before the examined timeframe of 2005-2014), and NOX emissions from sources other than EGUs combined are much higher than NOX emissions from EGUs alone. Actual NOX emissions reported from contributing sources in Indiana decreased incrementally over the first five-year timeframe (2005-2009) by 38%. The NOX emissions reduction between 2010 and 2014 decreased by only 13%, due to increases in NOX emissions from point, mobile, and non-road sources in 2010 and 2011; but total NOX emissions decreased by 42% between 2004 and 2014. These reductions show that Indiana is in line with improvements predicted by the modeling for 2012 and will likely exceed visibility improvements anticipated by 2018. Table 2 below summarizes the actual SO2 and NOX emission from contributing sources in Indiana between 2005 and 2014.

    Table 2—Actual (Reported) SO2 and NOX Emissions From Contributing Sources in Indiana Year SO2
  • (tons)
  • NOX
  • (tons)
  • 2005 956,031 283,059 2006 920,251 260,810 2007 797,900 276,402 2008 669,936 273,903 2009 480,884 174,828 2010 480,628 187,988 2011 425,786 180,674 2012 343,124 171,136 2013 340,786 165,778 2014 346,429 164,520

    EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that Indiana has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308.

    5. Assessment of Any Significant Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions

    In its progress report, Indiana indicated that no significant changes in anthropogenic emissions have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by Indiana sources. As mentioned above, Indiana acknowledges in its progress report that there was an increase in total NOX emissions from contributing sources in Indiana in 2010 and 2011. To address this potential concern, Indiana points out that NOX emissions began to decrease once again in 2012, and continued to decrease every subsequent year through 2014. Indiana also states that the decrease in SO2 and NOX emissions between from 2005 and 2009 was so significant that the slight increase of NOX in 2010 and 2011 had no actual impact in the overall progress made from 2005 to 2014. For these reasons, Indiana does not consider the increase of NOX emission in 2010 and 2011 a problem that has or will impede future visibility progress in states with Class I areas potentially impacted by Indiana sources.

    EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that Indiana has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308.

    6. Assessment of Whether the Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies Are Sufficient To Enable Other States To Meet RPGs

    In its progress report, Indiana states that it has implemented, or expects to implement by 2018, all controls from its regional haze plan. The state noted in the progress report that its emissions are on track for the 2018 goals, including reductions that are ahead of pace for the key pollutants, SO2 and NOX. Indiana assessed each of the areas identified in the MRPO report as being impacted by Indiana sources using information provided by the MRPO, technical documents from the other RPOs, and letters received from other states indicating their decisions regarding reasonable progress goals.

    Indiana's long term strategy relied on the emission reductions from CAIR, a program that has now been replaced by CSAPR. At the present time, the requirements of CSAPR apply to sources in Indiana under the terms of a FIP. The Regional Haze Rule requires an assessment of whether the current “implementation plan” is sufficient to enable the states to meet all established reasonable progress goals. 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term “implementation plan” is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze Rule to mean “any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.” 40 CFR 51.301. EPA is considering measures in any applicable FIP, as well as those in a state's regional haze SIP, in assessing the adequacy of the “existing implementation plan” under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h).

    EPA applies this requirement as an assessment of emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information. Indiana determined that its regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable other States to meet the RPGs for the Class I areas impacted by the State's emissions. EPA proposes to conclude that Indiana has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308.

    7. Review of the State's Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    Indiana's progress report states there are no Class I areas within its borders and thus finds that the State is not required to have a visibility monitoring strategy in place. EPA concurs, and proposes to conclude that Indiana has adequately addressed the requirements for a monitoring strategy for regional haze and propose to determine no further modifications to the monitoring strategy are required.

    B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In its progress report, Indiana submitted a negative declaration to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or emission reductions in Indiana beyond those already in place and those to be implemented by 2018 according to Indiana's regional haze plan.

    Indiana determined that its regional haze plan is adequate to meet the Regional Haze Rule requirements and expects Class I areas affected by Indiana to achieve the reasonable progress goals. EPA finds that the state is on track to meet the visibility improvement and emission reduction goals.

    Because monitored visibility values and emission trends indicate that Class I areas impacted by Indiana's sources are meeting or exceeding the RPGs for 2018, and are expected to continue to meet or exceed the RPGs for 2018, EPA proposes to conclude that Indiana has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h).

    C. Public Participation

    On January 14, 2016, Indiana provided an opportunity for Federal Land Managers (FLMs) to review the revision to Indiana's SIP reporting on progress made during the first implementation period toward RPGs for Class I areas outside the state that are affected by emissions from Indiana's sources. Comments were received from the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service. Indiana's progress report, in Appendix D, includes the FLM comments and the State's responses to the comments.

    On February 19, 2016, Indiana published notification for a request for public hearing and solicitation for full public comment on the draft progress report in widely distributed publications. A public hearing was not requested, and no comments were received.

    EPA proposes to find that Indiana has addressed the applicable requirements in 51.308(i) regarding FLM consultation.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's Regional Haze five-year progress report, submitted March 30, 2016, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26304 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0089; FXES11130900000C6-178-FF09E42000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Possible Effects of Court Decision on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Conterminous United States AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Regulatory review; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are seeking public comment on a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017), that may impact our June 30, 2017, final rule delisting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear Distinct Population Segment (DPS). In Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., the court opined that the Service had not evaluated the status of the remainder of the listed entity of wolves in light of the Western Great Lakes (WGL) wolf DPS delisting action and what the effect of lost historical range may have on the status of the WGL wolf DPS. We also describe in this notice our strategy to recover grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the lower 48 States of the United States and provide a brief recovery update for each ecosystem.

    DATES:

    We will accept comments received or postmarked by the end of the day on January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, ATTN: FWS-R6-ES-2017-0089, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3803.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0089.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall, Room 309, Missoula, MT 59812; by telephone (406) 243-4903. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In 1975, the Service listed the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as threatened in the lower 48 United States (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). On June 30, 2017, the Service published a final rule (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017; RIN 1018-BA41) designating the GYE population of grizzly bears as a DPS, finding that the DPS was recovered, and removing that DPS from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The final rule became effective on July 31, 2017, and remains in effect. Grizzly bears in the remaining area of the lower 48 States remain listed as threatened under the ESA as amended. The status of any grizzly bear population may be changed only through formal rulemaking.

    On August 1, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling, Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017), that affirmed the prior judgement of the district court vacating the 2011 delisting rule for wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) (76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011). The 2011 rule designated the gray wolf population in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as well as portions of six surrounding States, as the WGL DPS, determined that the WGL DPS was recovered, and delisted the WGL as a DPS.

    This court opinion may impact the GYE final rule, which also designated a portion of an already-listed entity as a DPS and then revised the listed entity by removing the DPS due to recovery. Therefore, we are reviewing the potential implications for the GYE final rule in light of the Humane Society ruling. We are seeking public comment on this subject (see Request for Public Comments). Below we summarize our recovery strategy to assist the public in providing public comment on the impacts that Humane Society might have on grizzly bear.

    Recovery Strategy

    The grizzly bear was originally distributed in various habitats throughout Western North America from Central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. Current distribution in the lower 48 States consists of five small populations with an estimated total population of 1,800 bears. The 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, p. 15) identified seven grizzly bear ecosystems, including five with either self-perpetuating or existing populations and two additional areas, the Bitterroot Mountains in Idaho and the San Juan Mountains in Colorado, where grizzly bears are known to have existed in the recent past. While no resident population currently exists in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, that ecosystem contains adequate habitat to sustain a population. The Recovery Plan suggests that further evaluation is needed on the status of the San Juan Mountains, where no grizzly bears exist today (USFWS 1993, p.16).

    The Service's overarching vision for recovery of grizzly bears in the lower 48 States, to recover and delist populations individually in each of the ecosystems as recovery is achieved, was outlined in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, pp. 16, 33) and further discussed in our 2011 5-year status review (USFWS 2011, pp. 12-14). The review also found that the lower-48-State listing is consistent with our 1996 DPS Policy and recommended that the current entity, on the whole, should retain its threatened status (USFWS 2011, p. 104). We recognized that sufficient evidence exists to support multiple DPSs within the lower-48-State listing, but indicated that further subdivision of the lower-48-State listing was unnecessary at the time (USFWS 2011, p. 14). Prior to the 5-year status review, the Service had attempted to delist the GYE grizzly bear population as a DPS (72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007). That determination was subsequently vacated by the Federal District Court for the District of Montana (Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen et al., 672 F.Supp. 2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009), and the vacatur was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011).

    The 2011 5-year status review also committed to an evaluation of potential DPSs within the lower-48-State listing to determine whether they are near the point where rulemaking is warranted or appropriate (e.g., when recovery is achieved and delisting may be warranted; or when listing funds become available to address those populations for which we determined that reclassifying to endangered status was warranted but precluded) (USFWS 2011, p. 14). The GYE was the first ecosystem to achieve recovery and was the first population to be delisted.

    Recovery Status

    There are approximately 1,800 grizzly bears in the lower 48 States. The population and legal status under the ESA of each ecosystem is as follows:

    (1) The GYE: Had approximately 695 bears in 2016 (Van Manen and Harodson 2017, p. 3)—delisted due to recovery July 31, 2017 (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017);

    (2) The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem: Had approximately 960 bears in 2014 (Costello et al. 2017, p. 2)—still listed as threatened (likely biologically recovered, although no decision has been made);

    (3) The Selkirk Ecosystem: Had approximately 70-80 bears in 2016 (Kasworm et al. 2017)—still listed as threatened;

    (4) The Cabinet Yaak Ecosystem: Had approximately 56 bears in 2016 (Kasworm et al. 2017)—warranted-but-precluded for uplisting to endangered (August 22, 2017, court order);

    (5) The North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE): Contains no confirmed grizzly bears in the United States (U.S. DOI 2016) and an estimated 6 individuals in the adjacent British Columbia portion of the NCE (MFLNRO 2012)—warranted-but-precluded for endangered status (81 FR 87264, December 2, 2016);

    (6) The Bitterroot Ecosystem: Currently unoccupied (IGBC 2015)—Nonessential Experimental Population Area (65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000).

    Next Steps and Timing

    The Service is evaluating the Court's ruling in Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., in the context of our final determination regarding the GYE grizzly bear final rule (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017) to consider what impact, if any, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal ruling has on the GYE grizzly bear final rule and what further evaluation should be considered regarding the issues raised in Humane Society. We will address public comments and notify the public of our conclusions by March 31, 2018. The GYE final delisting rule will remain in effect during this review process, and the status of grizzly bears throughout the rest of the range will remain unchanged.

    Request for Public Comments

    We invite written comments on the manner in which the Humane Society decision may affect the GYE grizzly bear final rule (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017). Specifically, we are interested in public input on whether the Humane Society opinion affects the GYE grizzly bear final rule and what, if any, further evaluation the Service should consider regarding the remaining grizzly bear populations and lost historical range in light of the Service's decision regarding the GYE grizzly bear.

    We request comments from any interested party that pertain to the issues raised in the preceding paragraph only. We will consider all comments received by the date specified in DATES. You must submit your comments and supporting materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider comments sent by email or fax, or written comments sent to an address other than the one listed in ADDRESSES.

    Public Availability of Comments

    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request that we withhold this information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    References Cited

    A complete list of all reference cited herein is available at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0089, or upon request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authority:

    This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: November 1, 2017. Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising Authority of Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25995 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Chapter III [Docket No. 170925942-7999-01] RIN 0648-BH30 International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Revised 2018 Commercial Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; 2018 Catch Limit AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act to revise trip limits on the commercial catch of Pacific bluefin tuna applicable to 2018. U.S. commercial fishing vessels are subject to a biennial limit for 2017 and 2018. Preliminary estimates indicate that the catch limit in 2018 is approximately 120 metric tons (mt). To avoid exceeding the biennial limit, NMFS is proposing a 1-mt trip limit—except for large-mesh drift gillnet vessels, which would be subject to a 2-mt trip limit—throughout 2018 or until the 2018 catch limit is reached and the fishery is closed. This action is necessary to contribute to the rebuilding of Pacific bluefin tuna and for the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents must be submitted in writing by January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0128, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0128, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Celia Barroso, NMFS West Coast Region Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0128” in the comments.

    Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure they are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2017-0128, or contact with the Regional Administrator, Barry A. Thom, NMFS West Coast Region, 1201 NE., Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274, or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Celia Barroso, NMFS, 562-432-1850, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background on the IATTC

    The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established in 1949 and operates under the Convention for the Strengthening of the IATTC Established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (Antigua Convention). See: https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Antigua_Convention_Jun_2003.pdf.

    The IATTC consists of 21 member nations and four cooperating non-member nations, and facilitates scientific research into, as well as the conservation and management of, tuna and tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area (Convention Area). The Convention Area is defined as waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) within the area bounded by the west coast of the Americas and by 50° N. latitude, 150° W. longitude, and 50° S. latitude. The IATTC maintains a scientific research and fishery monitoring program, and regularly assesses the status of tuna, shark, and billfish stocks in the EPO to determine appropriate catch limits and other measures deemed necessary to promote sustainable fisheries and prevent the overexploitation of these stocks.

    International Obligations of the United States Under the Convention

    As a Party to the Antigua Convention and a member of the IATTC, the United States is legally bound to implement decisions of the IATTC. The Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and, with respect to enforcement measures, the U.S. Coast Guard, to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the United States' obligations under the Antigua Convention, including recommendations and decisions adopted by the IATTC. The authority of the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate such regulations has been delegated to NMFS.

    Pacific Bluefin Tuna Stock Status

    In 2011, NMFS determined overfishing was occurring on Pacific bluefin tuna (76 FR 28422, May 17, 2011), which is considered a single Pacific-wide stock. Based on the results of a 2012 stock assessment conducted by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC), NMFS determined Pacific bluefin tuna was not only subject to overfishing, but was also overfished (78 FR 41033, July 9, 2013). Based on the results of the 2016 ISC stock assessment, NMFS determined that Pacific bluefin tuna continued to be overfished and subject to overfishing (82 FR 18434, April 19, 2017).

    Implementation of IATTC Resolution on Pacific Bluefin Tuna in 2017

    Recognizing the need to reduce fishing mortality of Pacific bluefin tuna, the IATTC has adopted catch limits, which were implemented by NMFS, in the Convention Area since 2012 (see 80 FR 38986, July 8, 2015). At its resumed 90th Meeting in October 2016, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-16-08. Resolution C-16-08 set a biennial limit of 600 metric tons (mt) for 2017 and 2018 applicable to commercial vessels of each member or cooperating non-member, except Mexico, with a historical record of Pacific bluefin tuna catch from the EPO (such as the United States). Total catch is not to exceed 425 mt in a single year.

    In accordance with a Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommendation, NMFS implemented the catch limits in Resolution C-16-08 with a 25-mt trip limit until catch is within 50 mt of the annual limit (i.e., annual limit is 425 mt in 2017) and a 2-mt trip limit when catch is within 50 mt of the annual limit (82 FR 18704, April 21, 2017). Although these trip limits were intended to assist with inseason management of the fishery, the annual limit was exceeded in 2017. The catch rate was more rapid than anticipated, which caused the annual limit to be exceeded before the fishery was closed on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40720). This series of events prompted NMFS and the Council to reconsider management measures for 2018 to avoid exceeding the biennial limit.

    Council Recommendation for the Implementation of Resolution C-16-08 in 2018

    At its September 2017 meeting, the Council recommended that NMFS establish a 1-mt trip limit throughout all of 2018 to avoid exceeding the biennial limit by only allowing vessels (e.g., drift gillnet, surface hook-and-line) to land Pacific bluefin tuna in small quantities. In this rule, NMFS is proposing a 1-mt trip limit applicable to all commercial U.S. vessels—except drift gillnet, which would be subject to a 2-mt trip limit—because it minimizes the potential to waste fish by forcing discards of any amount over the trip limit (also called “regulatory bycatch”), while preventing a derby-style fishery by larger fishing operations that was difficult to monitor in 2017. Landings by gear-type from 2007-2016 indicate that while a majority of landings by vessels other than purse seine have been less than 1 mt, some landings exceeded 1 mt (of 909 landings of Pacific bluefin tuna from vessels other than purse seine, 11 exceeded 1 mt, including one landing that exceeded 2 mt). Specifically, all but one of the landings that exceeded 1 mt were by drift gillnet vessels. In such cases, a 1-mt trip limit would result in regulatory bycatch. Based on historical fishing patterns, it is unlikely that the annual limit in 2018 would be exceeded with these trip limits because landings by vessels other than purse seine rarely exceeded 2 mt and total annual landings by vessels other than purse seine have not exceeded 40 mt. Additionally, as heard in testimony by the Council's Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel at the September 2017 Council meeting, the coastal purse seine vessels that opportunistically target Pacific bluefin tuna are not likely to target Pacific bluefin tuna under a trip limit as small as 1 mt.

    Also at its September 2017 meeting, the Council recommended reopening the fishery for the remainder of 2017 to allow incidentally caught Pacific bluefin tuna to be landed and for proper record keeping for stock assessment purposes. NMFS, in consultation with the U.S. Department of State, decided not to act on that recommendation because re-opening the fishery after exceeding the 2017 annual limit was not contemplated under Resolution C-16-08. Lastly, fisheries likely to discard Pacific bluefin tuna during the remainder of 2017 include the drift gillnet fishery, which has logbook and observer requirements where discard information should be collected.

    2018 Catch Limit

    Preliminary estimates indicate that U.S. commercial vessels have already caught 480 mt of Pacific bluefin tuna in 2017. In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 300.25(g)(2)(ii) and based on the preliminary estimates, the 2018 catch limit will be approximately 120 mt. NMFS continues to gather data on commercial catches of Pacific bluefin tuna. NMFS will publish the specific 2018 catch limit with the final rule to revise the 2018 commercial Pacific bluefin tuna regulations.

    In accordance with the April 2017 final rule implementing Resolution C-16-08 (82 FR 18704) and regulations at 50 CFR 300.25(g), when NMFS determines that the catch limit is expected to be reached in 2018 (based on landings receipts, data submitted in logbooks, and other available fishery information), NMFS will prohibit commercial fishing for, or retention of, Pacific bluefin tuna for the remainder of the calendar year. NMFS will also publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the targeting, retaining, transshipping, or landing of Pacific bluefin tuna will be prohibited on a specified effective date through the end of that calendar year. Upon that effective date, a commercial fishing vessel of the United States may not be used to target, retain on board, transship, or land Pacific bluefin tuna captured in the Convention Area during the period specified in the announcement. However, any Pacific bluefin tuna already on board a fishing vessel on the effective date may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, provided that any bluefin on board are landed within 14 days after the effective date.

    Proposed Regulations

    This proposed rule would revise the trip limits for U.S. commercial vessels that catch Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area for 2018. NMFS proposes that a 1-mt trip limit applicable to all U.S. commercial vessels except large-mesh drift gillnet vessels and a 2-mt trip limit applicable to large-mesh drift gillnet vessels would be in effect throughout all of 2018 or until the fishery is closed through the end of the 2018 calendar year because the annual limit is reached.

    To conform to the requirements of 1 CFR 21.8, NMFS also proposes to insert “NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE” into the heading of 50 CFR, chapter III.

    Classification

    After consulting with the Department of State, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act and other applicable laws.

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

    Additionally, although there are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, existing collection-of-information requirements associated with the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) still apply. These requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0204. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is provided in the following paragraphs.

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a “small business” (or “small entity”) as one with annual revenue that meets or is below an established size standard. Under 5 CFR 200.2, for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411), the small business size standard for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only is $11 million in annual gross receipts.

    The small entities the proposed action would directly affect are all U.S. commercial fishing vessels that may target (e.g., coastal pelagic purse seine vessels) or incidentally catch (e.g., drift gillnet) Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area; however, not all vessels that have participated in this fishery decide to do so every year. U.S. commercial catch of Pacific bluefin tuna from the IATTC Convention Area is primarily made in waters off of California by the coastal pelagic small purse seine fleet, which targets Pacific bluefin tuna opportunistically, and other fleets (e.g., California large-mesh drift gillnet, surface hook-and-line, west coast longline, and Hawaii's pelagic fisheries) that catch Pacific bluefin tuna in small quantities, such as incidentally.

    Revenues of coastal purse seine vessels are not expected to be significantly altered as a result of this rule, which is applicable to 2018 only. Since 2006, the average annual revenue per vessel from all finfish fishing activities for the U.S. purse seine fleet that have landed Pacific bluefin tuna has been less than $11 million, whether considering an individual vessel or per vessel average. Since 2006, in years Pacific bluefin tuna was landed, purse seine vessels that caught Pacific bluefin tuna had an average ex-vessel revenue of about $1.7 million per vessel (based on all species landed). Annually, from 2011 to 2015, the number of small coastal pelagic purse seine vessels that landed Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area ranged from zero to five. In 2011 and 2012, fewer than three vessels targeted Pacific bluefin tuna; therefore, their landings and revenue are confidential. In 2013, the coastal purse seine fishery did not land Pacific bluefin tuna. In 2014 and 2015, four and five vessels landed Pacific bluefin tuna, respectively. In 2014, eight purse seine vessels fishing in the Convention Area landed HMS in California, but only four of them were involved in landing roughly 401 mt of Pacific bluefin tuna, worth about $588,000, in U.S. West Coast ports. Similarly, in 2015, 11 vessels fishing in the Convention Area landed HMS in California, but only 5 vessels landed approximately 86 mt of Pacific bluefin tuna, worth about $75,000. The revenue derived from Pacific bluefin tuna is a fraction of the overall revenue for coastal pelagic purse seine vessels (3.9 percent annually from 2006-2015) as they typically harvest other species, including Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, squid, and anchovy. The value of Pacific bluefin tuna in coastal pelagic purse seine fishery from 2006-2015 was $1.31/kilogram. This amount is negligible relative to the fleet's annual revenue resulting from other species.

    Since 2006, the average annual revenue per vessel from all finfish fishing activities for the U.S. fleet with landings of Pacific bluefin tuna in small quantities, such as from incidental catch, has been less than $11 million. These vessels include drift gillnet, surface hook-and-line, and longline gear-types. The revenues of these vessels are also not expected to be significantly altered by the rule. From 2011 to 2015, the number of drift gillnet, surface hook-and-line, and longline vessels that participated in this fishery range from 11 to 12, 1 to 50, and 1 to 8, respectively. During these years, vessels with gears other than purse seine landed an annual average of 6.3 mt of Pacific bluefin tuna, worth approximately $32,600. Of these landings, only one trip by a drift gillnet vessel exceeded 2 mt, and other vessels using gear other than purse seine did not exceed 1 mt per trip. As a result, it is anticipated that proposed reduced trip limits will not have a significant impact on these vessels. However, if reduced trip limits are not imposed throughout 2018, it is possible that the 2018 catch limit will be met or exceeded and the fishery closed. If the fishery is closed before the calendar year, regulatory discards by these fleets are likely. Such a scenario would result in a greater impact to the fleet that catches Pacific bluefin tuna in small quantities, as opposed to the coastal purse seine fleet, which would simply cease targeting of Pacific bluefin tuna. Additionally, by imposing reduced trip limits in 2018, it is likely that all incidentally caught fish could enter the U.S. market and be accounted for instead of being discarded in the event of a fishery closure. This could result in a greater conservation benefit for the overfished Pacific bluefin stock.

    Although there are no disproportionate impacts between small and large business entities because all affected business entities are small, the impacts among the business entities will be different. Implementation of the reduced trip limit for 2018 in this proposed action would impose a greater economic impact on the U.S. coastal purse seine fleet. Prior to the implementation of a 25-mt trip limit in 2015, these vessels landed an average of 30 mt per trip, and are capable of landing over 70 mt in a single trip (based on landings from purse seine vessels targeting Pacific bluefin in the EPO from 2004-2014). It is possible that the purse seine fleet would not fish for Pacific bluefin tuna if the trip limit is 2 mt or less. Under the current regulations at 50 CFR 300.25(g)(2) and taking into account the 2017 catch, which exceeded the 2017 annual limit by at least 50 mt, a total of about 120 mt is available to U.S. commercial vessels in 2018. Under the current regulations at 50 CFR 300.25(g)(3), NMFS would need to reduce the trip limit from 25 mt to 2 mt when catch reaches approximately 70 mt (i.e., catch is within 50 mt of the annual limit). Consequently, any reduced profitability for the coastal purse seine fleet during 2018 as a result of the proposed action is not significant.

    Because each affected vessel is a small business, there are no disproportional affects to small versus large entities. Based on profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have significant adverse economic impacts on these small business entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and was not prepared for this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: November 29, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR chapter III is proposed to be amended as follows:

    CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL FISHING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1. The heading for chapter III is revised to read as set forth above. PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS Subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries 2. The authority citation for part 300, subpart C, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.

    3. In § 300.25, revise paragraph (g)(3) to read as follows:
    § 300.25 Fisheries management.

    (g) * * *

    (3) In 2018, a 1 metric ton trip limit will be in effect, except for vessels using large-mesh (14 inch or greater stretched mesh) drift gillnet gear. In 2018, a 2 metric ton trip limit will be in effect for vessels using large-mesh drift gillnet gear.

    [FR Doc. 2017-26146 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 234 Thursday, December 7, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Malheur National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District and Umatilla National Forest, North Fork John Day Ranger District; Oregon; Ragged Ruby Project AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice to extend the public scoping period for the Ragged Ruby Project for two proposed forest plan amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Malheur National Forest is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 30-day extension to the public scoping period on the project-specific forest plan amendments proposed as part of the Ragged Ruby Project. This extension is for two amendments for connectivity and harvest in late and old structure stands, which includes identification of the applicable planning rule provisions that are likely to be directly related to the amendment.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Comments can be filed electronically at: [email protected] Electronic comments must be submitted as part of the email message or as an attachment in plain text (.txt), Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or portable document format (.pdf). Emails submitted to addresses other than the one listed above, or in formats other than those listed or containing viruses, will be rejected.

    Mail: Written, specific comments must be submitted to Dave Halemeier, District Ranger, Blue Mountain Ranger District, c/o Sasha Fertig, P.O. Box 909, John Day, OR 97845, or FAX at 541-575-3319.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method or to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period may not be considered by the Malheur National Forest. All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible.

    This opportunity for comment applies only to the project-specific forest plan amendments described below in the Supplementary Information section. Previously submitted comments will be considered and should not be resubmitted. Previous commenters will have eligibility to object under 26 CFR 218.5.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sasha Fertig, NEPA Planner, Blue Mountain Ranger District, Malheur National Forest, 541-575-3061 or [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The full Ragged Ruby Project Scoping Package and Addendum is available on the Malheur National Forest Web site: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=49392.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The original Ragged Ruby Project Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2017 (82 FR 15020). The 2012 Planning Rule, as amended, requires identification in the initial notice of the amendment of the substantive provisions that are likely to be directly related to the amendment (36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11). During project development following the original NOI, the project's interdisciplinary team identified the need for a project-specific forest plan amendment to the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan), as amended by the Decision Notice for the Revised Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (Eastside Screens).

    The original NOI did not identify the need for this amendment to the Eastside Screens, Standard 6(d)(3)(a), or the applicable substantive provisions. The original NOI also did not identify the applicable substantive provisions for the project-specific forest plan amendment to the Eastside Screens, Standard 6(d) to allow harvest in late and old structure stands.

    Standard 6(d)(3)(a) provides direction to maintain or enhance the current level of connectivity between late and old structure (LOS) and old growth Management Area 13 (MA13) stands by maintaining connections between them as described in the Eastside Screens. This amendment is being proposed to allow upland restoration activities that would reduce stand density, increase tree spatial heterogeneity, protect old trees, and shift species composition to a higher proportion of early seral species (e.g., western white pine, western larch, and ponderosa pine), limiting the ability to connect all LOS and MA13 stands as directed in the Eastside Screens. Wildlife corridors would be provided between all MA13 stands, some LOS stands, and to adjacent watersheds; however, not all LOS stands would be connected due to LOS stand sizes and position on the landscape.

    The updated information described in this notice is provided in the Ragged Ruby Project Scoping Package Addendum, now available on the Forest's Web site: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=49392.

    Dated: Novmeber 16, 2017. Chris French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26377 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meetings of the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Arkansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold meetings on Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time. The Committee will continue discussion and preparations to study civil rights and criminal justice in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place on Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time.

    Public Call Information:

    • Wednesday January 10, 2018:

    • Dial: 877-719-9801, Conference ID: 7938515.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to these discussions. These meetings are available to the public through the above call in numbers. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Arkansas Advisory Committee link (https://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=236). Click on “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Civil Rights in Arkansas: Criminal Justice Future Plans and Actions Public Comment Adjournment Dated: December 1, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26350 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: 2017-2019 Business Research & Development Survey (BRDS).

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0912.

    Form Number(s): BRD-1.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 45,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 3 hours and 18 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 148,600.

    Needs and Uses: The Census Bureau is requesting clearance to conduct the Business Research and Development Survey (BRDS) for the 2017-2019 survey years with the revisions outlined in this document. Companies are the major performers of research and development (R&D) in the United States, accounting for over 70 percent of total U.S. R&D outlays each year. A consistent business R&D information base is essential to government officials formulating public policy, industry personnel involved in corporate planning, and members of the academic community conducting research. To develop policies designed to promote and enhance science and technology, past trends and the present status of R&D must be known and analyzed. Without comprehensive business R&D statistics, it would be impossible to evaluate the health of science and technology in the United States or to make comparisons between the technological progress of our country and that of other nations.

    The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 as amended authorizes and directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) “. . . to provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal government.” One of the methods used by NSF to fulfill this mandate is the BRDS—the primary federal source of information on R&D in the business sector. NSF together with the Census Bureau, the collecting and compiling agent, analyze the data and publish the resulting statistics.

    NSF has published annual R&D statistics collected from the Survey of Industrial Research and Development (1953-2007) and the Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) (2008-2016) for 63 years. The results of the surveys are used to assess trends in R&D expenditures by industry sector, investigate productivity determinants, formulate science and tax policy, and compare individual company performance with industry averages. This survey is the Nation's primary source for international comparative statistics on business R&D spending.

    The BRDS will continue to collect the following types of information:

    • R&D expense based on accounting standards.

    • Worldwide R&D of domestic companies.

    • Business segment detail.

    • R&D related capital expenditures.

    • Detailed data about the R&D workforce.

    • R&D strategy and data on the potential impact of R&D on the market.

    • R&D directed to application areas of particular national interest.

    • Data measuring intellectual property protection activities.

    The following changes will be made to the 2017-2019 BRDS compared to the 2016 BRDIS:

    • Removed four innovation questions from Section 1.

    • Moved Capital Expenditures questions from Section 2 to their own section, Section 4.

    • Added a Yes/No question to determine if any capital expenditures were reimbursed by others.

    • Reinstated question on Intellectual Property Protection in Section 7 which had been collected in previous years.

    From 2008-2015, the BRDIS collected R&D and innovation data from companies with five or more employees. In 2016, the BRDIS collected R&D and innovation data from companies with at least one paid employee. Beginning with the 2017 survey (collected in 2018), the BRDS will no longer collect innovation data, and only companies with at least 10 paid employees will be in scope. The Census Bureau will continue to collect R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees, and innovation data from all companies, however, beginning in 2017, these data will be collected on a new survey, the Annual Business Survey. Accordingly, we are also changing the name of the collection to the Business Research and Development Survey—dropping Innovation (BRDS).

    Information from the BRDS will continue to support the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 as well as other R&D-related initiatives introduced during the clearance period. Other initiatives that have used BRDS statistics include: The Science of Science and Innovation Policy (NSF); and Rising Above the Gathering Storm (National Research Council).

    Policy officials from many Federal agencies rely on these statistics for essential information. Businesses and trade organizations rely on BRDS data to benchmark their industry's performance against others. For example, total U.S. R&D expenditures statistics have been used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to update the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPAs) and, in fact, the BEA recently has recognized and incorporated R&D as fixed investment in the NIPA. Accurate R&D data are needed to continue the development and effect subsequent updates to this detailed satellite account. Also, NSF, BEA and the Census Bureau periodically update a data linking project that utilizes BRDS data to augment global R&D investment information that is obtained from BEA's Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and U.S. Direct Investment Abroad (USDIA) surveys. Further, the Census Bureau links data collected by BRDS with other statistical files. At the Census Bureau, historical company-level R&D data are linked to a file that contains information on the outputs and inputs of companies' manufacturing plants. Researchers are able to analyze the relationships between R&D funding and other economic variables by using micro-level data.

    Individuals and organizations access the survey statistics via the Internet in annual InfoBriefs published by NSF's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) that announce the availability of statistics from each cycle of BRDS and detailed statistical table reports that contain all of the statistics NSF produces from BRDS. Information about the kinds of projects that rely on statistics from BRDS is available from internal records of NSF's NCSES. In addition, survey statistics are regularly cited in trade publications and many researchers use the survey statistics from these secondary sources without directly contacting NSF or the Census Bureau.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 8(b), 131, and 182; Title 42, United States Code, Sections 1861-76 (National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended).

    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. 2017-26385 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-50-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 98—Birmingham, Alabama, Authorization of Production Activity, Brose Tuscaloosa, Inc., (Automotive Seats, Drives and Door Frames), Vance, Alabama

    On August 2, 2017, Brose Tuscaloosa, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 98 in Vance, Alabama.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 37191, August 9, 2017). On November 30, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26379 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with October anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 7, 2017.

    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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with October anniversary dates.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

    1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    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 place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    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 has found 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 this 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 this 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 the Quantity and Value (Q&V) 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 this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V 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 has requested 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 the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has 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.

    Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

    All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not

    limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

    3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

    For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

    Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than October 31, 2018.

    Period to be reviewed Antidumping Duty Proceedings Australia: Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products A-602-809 3/22/16-9/30/17 BlueScope Steel, Ltd. BlueScope Steel Americas, Inc Steelscape LLC Brazil: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod A-351-832 10/1/16-9/30/17 ArcelorMittal Brasil SA Siderurgica Norte Brasil SA Sinobras Villares Metals SA Votorantim Siderurgia Brazil: Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products A-351-845 3/22/16-9/30/17 Aperam South America ArcelorMittal Brasil CSN—Companhia Siderurgica Nacional CSS—Companhia Siderurgica Suape Marcegaglia do Brasil Usiminas—Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais SA Japan: Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products A-588-874 3/22/16-9/30/17 Hanwa Co., Ltd Hitachi Metals, Ltd Honda Trading Canada, Inc JFE Steel Corporation JFE Shoji Trade America Kanematsu Corporation Kobe Steel, Ltd Mitsui & Co., Ltd Miyama Industry Co., Ltd Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation Nippon Steel & Sumikin Logistics Co., Ltd Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd Okaya & Co., Ltd Panasonic Corporation Saint-Gobain KK Shinsho Corporation Sumitomo Corporation Suzukaku Corporation Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd Toyota Tsusho Corporation Nagoya Mexico: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod A-201-830 10/1/16-9/30/17 ArcelorMittal Mexico, S.A. de C.V ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V Ternium Mexico S.A. de C.V Republic of Korea: Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products A-580-883 3/22/16-9/30/17 Daewood International Corp Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd Hyundai Steel Co Marubeni-Itochu Steel Korea POSCO POSCO Processing & Service Co Soon Hong Trading Co Sungjin Co The Netherlands: Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products A-421-813 3/22/16-9/30/17 Tata Steel Ijmuiden BV The People's Republic of China: Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires 4 A-570-016 8/1/16-7/31/17 Cheng Shin Tire & Rubber (China) Co., Ltd. Shandong Haolong Rubber Tire Co., Ltd. The People's Republic of China: Certain Steel Nails 5 A-570-909 8/1/16-7/31/17 The People's Republic of China: Electrolytic Managanese Dioxide A-570-919 10/1/16-9/30/17 Shenzhen Pengcheng South Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. The People's Republic of China: Multilayered Wood Flooring 6 A-570-970 12/1/15-11/30/16 Den Hua Sen Tai Wood Co. Ltd Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co. Ltd The People's Republic of China: Steel Wire Garment Hangers A-570-918 10/1/16-9/30/17 Da Sheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd Hangzhou Qingqing Mechanical Co. Ltd Hangzhou Yingqing Material Co. Ltd Hangzhou Yinte Hong Kong Wells Ltd. (USA) Hong Kong Wells Ltd Shanghai Guoxing Metal Products Co. Ltd Shanghai Jianhai International Trade Co. Ltd Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co. Ltd Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd Shaoxing Meideli Hanger Co. Ltd Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co. Ltd Turkey: Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products A-489-826 3/22/16-9/30/17 Agir Haddecilik A.S Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S Colakoglu Metalurji, A.S Eregrli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S Gazi Metal Mamulleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S Habas Industrial and Medical Gases Production Industries Inc Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co MMK Atakas Metalurji Ozkan Iron and Steel Ind Toscelik Profile and Sheet Ind. Co. Tosyali Holding Countervailing Duty Proceedings Brazil: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod C-351-833 1/1/16-12/31/16 ArcelorMittal Brasil SA Sinobras—Siderurgica Norte Brasil SA Villares Metals SA Votorantim Siderurgia Brazil: Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products C-351-846 1/15/16-12/31/16 Companhia Siderurgica Nacional S.A Republic of Korea: Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products C-580-884 8/12/16-12/31/16 DCE Inc Dong Chuel America Inc Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd Hyewon Sni Corporation (H.S.I.) Hyundai Steel Company POSCO Soon Hong Trading Co., Ltd Sung-A Steel Co., Ltd Turkey: Oil Country Tubular Goods 7 C-489-817 1/1/16-12/31/16 Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S Borusan Istikbal Ticaret Cayirova Boru San A.S Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S HG Tubulars Canada Ltd Yucel Boru Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.S Yucelboru Ihracat, Ithalat Suspension Agreements Russia: Uranium A-821-802 10/1/16-9/30/17 Duty Absorption Reviews

    4 The companies listed above were misspelled in the initiation notice that published on October 16, 2017 (82 FR 48051). The correct spelling of the companies is listed in this notice.

    5 In the initiation that published on October 16, 2017 (82 FR 48051), the Department incorrectly identified that an administrative review was initiated on the antidumping duty order of Certain Steel Nails from the PRC for R-Time Group Inc.; Unicore Tianjin Fasteners Co. Ltd.; Anjing Caiquing Hardware Co., Ltd.; and Nanjing Caiquing Hardware Co. Ltd. The Department is now correcting that notice: The Department is initiating administrative reviews on the antidumping duty order of Certain Steel Nails from the PRC for the following companies: (1) Ri-Time Group Inc.; (2) Unicorn Tianjin Fasteners Co. Ltd.; (3) Nanjing Caiqing Hardware Co., Ltd.; (4) Hebei Handform Plastic Products Co. Ltd.; (5) Hebei Minghao Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.; (6) Hengtuo Metal Products Co. Ltd; (7) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd; (8) Nanjing Toua Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd.; and (9) Hebei Minmetals Co. Ltd.

    6 The companies listed above were inadvertently omitted from the initiation notice that published on February 13, 2017 (82 FR 10457).

    7 In the initiation notice that published on November 13, 2017 (82 FR 52268) the Department inadvertently duplicated the list of companies for Oil Country Tubular Goods from Tukey and included Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. in the initiation. However, as noted in that initiation notice, this company was excluded from the CVD order as a result of litigation. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Turkey: Amendment of Countervailing Duty Order, 82 FR 46483 (October 26, 2017). This notice serves as a correction.

    During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

    Gap Period Liquidation

    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 POR.

    Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Factual Information Requirements

    The Department's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (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). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 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. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.8 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 9 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    8See section 782(b) of the Act.

    9See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. See 19 CFR 351.302. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department 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, the Department 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. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: December 1, 2017. James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26383 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-900] Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request from Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition (the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether certain imports of diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) comprised of cores and segments produced in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and joined into finished diamond sawblades in, and exported from, Thailand are circumventing the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Effective January 23, 2009, the Department published the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC.1 On August 9, 2017, the petitioner filed a request for a circumvention ruling, requesting that the Department issue a determination of circumvention and suspend liquidation of certain diamond sawblades exported from Thailand.2 Specifically, the petitioner requests a circumvention ruling for three companies, Diamond Tools Technology (Diamond Tools), Bosun Tools (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Bosun), and Kingthai Diamond Tools (Kingthai).3 The petitioner requests that, in the alternative, and to the extent that the Department decides it to be more appropriate, the Department address circumvention issues in a changed circumstances review.4

    1See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 57145 (November 4, 2009).

    2See the Letter from the petitioner, “Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Request for Circumvention Ruling Pursuant to Section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 or in the Alternative a Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to Section 751(b) of the Act,” dated August 9, 2017 (the petitioner's circumvention ruling request), as amended in “Supplemental Submission Regarding Request for Circumvention Ruling Pursuant to Section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 or in the Alternative a Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to Section 751(b) of the Act,” dated September 14, 2017 (supplement to the petitioner's circumvention ruling request).

    3See Supplement to the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 10-12.

    4See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 22.

    On September 22, 2017, we received a letter from Bosun Tools Co., Ltd. (Bosun China) and its affiliate Bosun Tools (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Bosun Thailand) (collectively Bosun), arguing that Bosun Thailand has not engaged in the alleged activity of joining cores and segments made in the PRC and exporting them to the United States. Bosun claims that the petitioner did not support its allegation with any evidence with respect to Bosun. Bosun explains that the petitioner did not cite to record evidence supporting its allegation of limited manufacturing operations at Bosun Thailand, although the affiliation between Bosun China and Bosun Thailand is on the public record in the last completed administrative review of the order.5

    5See Bosun's Response to DSMC's Request for Anti-Circumvention Inquiry dated September 22, 2017.

    On October 2, 2017, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to the petitioner requesting additional information.6 On October 16, 2017, the petitioner submitted its response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.7 On October 26, 2017, Diamond Tools submitted its opposition to the petitioner's request for a circumvention ruling. In it, Diamond Tools denies that it circumvented the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC. Diamond Tools contends that the Department determined in the investigation that the country in which the cores and segments are joined is the country of origin.8 Diamond Tools argues that the U.S. Court of International Trade upheld the Department's decision with respect to the country of origin in the investigation.9

    6See the Department's supplemental questionnaire to the petitioner dated October 2, 2017.

    7See the petitioner's supplemental response dated October 16, 2017 (the petitioner's supplemental response).

    8See Diamond Tools' letter, “Diamond Sawblades & Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Response to Request by Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition for Anti-Circumvention Ruling” dated October 26, 2017 at 3 (citing Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) (Final Determination—China), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memo) at Comment 4).

    9Id. at 4 (citing Advanced Tech. & Materials Co. v. United States, No. 09-00511, slip op. 11-122, 2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 136, *1 at *9-*15 (Ct. Int'l Trade Oct. 12, 2011)).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of the order are semi-finished diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).

    Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the order.

    Merchandise subject to the order is typically imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. On October 11, 2011, the Department included the 6804.21.00.00 HTSUS classification number to the customs case reference file, pursuant to a request by CBP.10

    10See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 76128 (December 6, 2011).

    The tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Merchandise Subject to the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

    This anti-circumvention inquiry covers diamond sawblades exported from Thailand to the United States that are produced by Diamond Tools from cores and segments of PRC origin. If warranted, the Department may, based on additional evidence it receives from interested parties regarding potential anti-circumvention of the PRC Sawblades Order by other Thai companies, consider conducting additional inquiries concurrently.

    The petitioner requests that the Department treat diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand with cores and segments from the PRC as subject merchandise under the scope of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC.

    Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

    Section 781(b)(1) of The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping or countervailing duty order if: (A) Merchandise imported into the United States is of the same class or kind as any merchandise produced in a foreign country that is the subject of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or finding; (B) before importation into the United States, such imported merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign country from merchandise which is subject to the order or merchandise which is produced in the foreign country that is subject to the order; (C) the process of assembly or completion in the foreign country referred to in section (B) is minor or insignificant; (D) the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the AD or CVD order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States; and (E) the administering authority determines that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of such order or finding. As discussed below, the petitioner provided information available to them with respect to these criteria.11

    11See section 781(b)(1) of the Act.

    A. Merchandise of the Same Class or Kind

    The petitioner claims that, in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, diamond sawblades exported from Thailand to the United States are identical to diamond sawblades exported from the PRC to the United Sates subject to the antidumping duty order. The petitioner contends that, because cores, segments, and diamond sawblades are all one class or kind of subject merchandise, a process that simply transforms one of these items to another should not serve as an avenue for PRC producers to evade the antidumping duty order.12

    12See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 13-14 and Exhibit 9 for U.S. imports of diamond sawblades from the PRC and Thailand under the same HTSUS subheadings.

    B. Completion of Merchandise in a Third Country Before Importation Into the United States

    The petitioner contends that, in Thailand, cores made in the PRC are being joined to segments made in the PRC and undergo a minor welding operation and minor processing before they are imported into the United States.13 The petitioner claims that PRC producers with facilities in Thailand for which it requests an anti-circumvention inquiry are as follows: Bosun Tools Co., Ltd., Hebei Jikai Group, and Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.14 The petitioner also notes that, pursuant to an investigation under the Enforce and Protect Act, CBP recently issued a Notice of Interim Measures finding a reasonable suspicion that Diamond Tools was evading the order.15

    13See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 14-15 and Exhibits 10-12. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 2-6 and Exhibits 5-6.

    14See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 14-15 and Exhibits 1, 4, and 5. See also supplement to the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 10 for Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.

    15See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 9 and Exhibit 8 (where the petitioner cites to Memorandum from Troy P. Riley, Executive Director, Trade Remedy & Law Enf't Directorate, to Yan Li, Diamond Tools Tech., “re: Notice of interim measures taken as to Diamond Tools Technology LLC concerning a reasonable suspicion as to evasion of the antidumping duty order on Diamond Sawblades from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 27, 2017 (Notice of Interim Measures).

    C. Minor or Insignificant Process

    The petitioner explains that, in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, the Department considers whether the assembly or completion that occurs in the other foreign country is minor or insignificant. The petitioner states that, under section 781(b)(2)(A)-(E) of the Act, the Department considers five factors to determine whether the process of assembly or completion is minor or insignificant. The petitioner alleges that, based on these factors, the completion of the merchandise in Thailand is minor and insignificant.16

    16See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16.

    1. Level of Investment in Thailand

    The petitioner argues that there is little evidence of any significant level of investment in Thailand for production activities beyond joining cores and segments and laser welding.17 In other words, according to the petitioner, diamond sawblades production facilities in Thailand are not sophisticated enough to produce segments. The petitioner explains that the production of segments is a complex process that requires detailed expertise in metallurgy and technical experience in bonding of diamond powders and metal powders in the production process and the performance of diamond sawblades for particular applications. The petitioner claims that only highly skilled technicians can perform such production processes, while laser-welding is a highly-automated process that essentially only requires a person who can operate a keyboard.18 The petitioner claims further that other methods of joining cores and segments, e.g., silver soldering or sintering, are even less sophisticated than laser-welding.19

    17See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16-18 and Exhibits 8, 10, 11, and 12. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 9-10 and Exhibits 5-6.

    18See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16-17.

    19 The Department considers that this portion of the petitioner's circumvention ruling request is relevant to the consideration contained in section 781(b)(2)(C) (“the nature of the production process in the foreign country”).

    The petitioner distinguishes the level of capital investment between segment production and laser-welding. The petitioner explains that segment production requires significant capital investment for equipment such as weighing scales, mixing equipment, granulating equipment, cold pressing equipment, sintering presses, inspecting equipment, and radius grinding equipment. The petitioner claims that, in particular, the induction and resistance presses used in segment production represent a substantial capital investment. The petitioner contends that the capital investment required for joining cores and segments is essentially limited to a piece of laser-welding equipment.

    The petitioner distinguishes the level of costs between segment production and joining cores and segments. According to the petitioner, the production cost for finished diamond sawblades segments may represent approximately 70 percent of the cost of producing a finished diamond sawblade, whereas joining cores and segments typically accounts for a much smaller percentage of the cost of production, often as low as 0.5 percent of the cost of a finished diamond sawblade.20 The petitioner also asserts that laser welding requires a relatively small capital investment because the only piece of machinery needed to join cores and segments through laser welding is a laser welder itself.21

    20See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 17. The Department considers that this portion of the petitioner's circumvention ruling request is relevant to the consideration contained in section 781(b)(1)(D) (“the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States”).

    21See the petitioner's supplemental response at 9-10 and Exhibits 5.

    The petitioner argues that, for these reasons, the joining operations require very minimal investment.22

    22See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16-18. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 9-10 and Exhibits 5-6.

    2. Level of Research and Development

    The petitioner argues that, because laser-welding is a highly-automated process and other methods of joining cores and segments are less sophisticated than laser-welding, entities joining the PRC cores and segments in Thailand do not, and do not need to, invest in research and development in Thailand.23

    23See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 18. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 10-12 and Exhibits 5-6.

    3. Nature of Production Process

    The petitioner states that there is very minimal additional processing done in Thailand to diamond sawblades produced in the PRC and exported to Thailand and later re-exported to the United States. The petitioner reiterates that joining cores and segments is a highly automated process and, compared to segment production, welding of cores and segments is a minimal step in the overall production process.24 As mentioned above, the petitioner explains that the production of segments is a complex process that requires detailed expertise in metallurgy and technical experience in bonding of diamond powders and metal powders in the production process and the performance of diamond sawblades for particular applications. The petitioner claims that only highly skilled technicians can perform such production processes, while laser-welding is a highly-automated process that essentially only requires a person who can operate a keyboard.25 The petitioner claims further that other methods of joining cores and segments, e.g., silver soldering or sintering, are even less sophisticated than laser-welding.

    24See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 18. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 12-14 and Exhibits 5, 6, 11, and 12.

    25See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16-17.

    4. Extent of Production Facilities in Thailand

    The petitioner explains that, before the imposition of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC in 2009, Thailand had very minimal exports of diamond sawblades to the United States. The petitioner contends that little, if any, of the increase of exports of diamond sawblades from Thailand—from $1.8 million in 2006 to $5.8 million in 2012 to $11.4 million in 2013 to $41.7 million in 2016—is due to an increase in production facilities in Thailand.26 The petitioner explains that evidence indicates very limited investment in building facilities in Thailand for production of diamond sawblades.27

    26See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 19 and Exhibit 9. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 14-16 and Exhibit 7.

    27See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 19. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 14-16 and Exhibit 9.

    5. Value of Processing in Thailand

    The petitioner reiterates that the joining of cores and segments constitutes a small portion of the cost and represents the smallest portion of the production costs of diamond sawblades imported into the United States. The petitioner provides information indicating that cores and segments produced in the PRC represent the vast majority of the value of the products exported to the United States.28

    28See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 19-20. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 16-17 and Exhibits 5-6.

    D. Value of Merchandise Produced in the PRC Is a Significant Portion of the Total Value of the Merchandise Exported to the United States

    The petitioner explains that the value of the segments and cores produced in China represent the vast majority of the value of the products exported to the United States.29 Further, the petitioner states that the cost breakdown of a typical finished diamond sawblade shows that manufacture of the segments and the core comprise the bulk of its value.30

    29See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 20.

    30See the petitioner's supplemental response at 7.

    E. Additional Factors To Consider in Determining Whether Action Is Necessary

    Section 781(b)(3) of the Act directs the Department to consider additional factors in determining whether to include merchandise assembled or completed in a foreign country within the scope of the order, such as: “(A) the pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns, (B) whether the manufacturer or exporter of the merchandise . . . is affiliated with the person who uses the merchandise . . . to assemble or complete in the foreign country the merchandise that is subsequently imported into the United States, and (C) whether imports into the foreign country of the merchandise . . . have increased after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the issuance of such order or finding.” The petitioner claims an increase of the imports of diamond sawblades from Thailand from $0.4 million in 2005, before the investigation, to $4 million at the time of the imposition of the antidumping duty order in 2009 to $40.5 million in 2015 and $41.7 million in 2016 represents a noticeable shift in patterns of trade since the Department issued the antidumping duty order. Moreover, the petitioner provided import statistics showing a significant increase in U.S. imports of diamond sawblades from Thailand between 2005 and 2015 and in particular, massive increases in imports between 2010-2015.31

    31See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at Exhibit 9.

    The petitioner argues that there is evidence of affiliation between PRC producers and their Thai counterparts that are engaged in circumvention of the antidumping duty order. For example, the petitioner claims that Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., has established an affiliate in Thailand, i.e., Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand), for which CBP determined that there is a reasonable suspicion that Diamond Tools has entered merchandise into the United States through evasion.32 The petitioner explains that PRC producers of diamond sawblades, e.g., Bosun Tools Co., Ltd. have opened facilities in Thailand.33

    32See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 21-22.

    33See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at Exhibit 8 and supplement to the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 10 for Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., and Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand) as an example.

    Analysis of the Allegation

    Based on our analysis of the petitioner's anti-circumvention allegation and the information provided therein, we find that an anti-circumvention inquiry of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC is warranted with respect to Diamond Tools. If warranted, the Department may, based on additional evidence it receives from interested parties regarding potential anti-circumvention of the PRC Sawblades Order by other Thai companies, consider conducting additional inquiries concurrently.

    With regard to whether the merchandise from Thailand is of the same class or kind as the merchandise produced in the PRC, the petitioner presented information to the Department indicating that, in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the merchandise being produced in and/or exported from Thailand is of the same class or kind as diamond sawblades produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty order.34 Consequently, we find that the petitioner provided sufficient information in its request regarding the class or kind of merchandise to support the initiation of this anti-circumvention inquiry.

    34See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 13-14 and Exhibit 9.

    With regard to completion or assembly of merchandise in a foreign country, in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(B) of the Act, the petitioner also presented to us two affidavits and the CBP Notice of Interim Measures indicating that diamond sawblades exported from Thailand to the United States by Diamond Tools are produced in Thailand using cores and segments produced and exported from the PRC.35 We find that the information presented by the petitioner regarding this criterion supports its request to initiate this anti-circumvention inquiry with respect to Diamond Tools.

    35See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 14-15 and Exhibits 9-12. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 2-6 and Exhibits 5, 6, and 9.

    The Department finds that the petitioner sufficiently addressed the factors described in section 781(b)(1)(C) and (2) of the Act regarding whether the process of assembly or completion of finished diamond sawblades in Thailand is minor or insignificant with respect to Diamond Tools. In particular, the petitioner provided information indicating that: (1) The level of investment in the production facilities is minimal when compared with the level of investment for the facilities used in the production of segments; (2) there is little or no research and development taking place in Thailand; (3) the joining process involves the highly automated laser-welding, or other simpler joining methods, of cores and segments produced in the PRC and subject to the antidumping duty order; (4) the production facilities in Thailand are more limited than facilities in the PRC; and (5) the value of the processing performed in Thailand is a small proportion of the value of the diamond sawblades imported into the United States. In addition, according to the petitioner, in an ongoing investigation under the Enforce and Protect Act, CBP has issued an interim measure stating that there is a reasonable suspicion that Diamond Tools has entered subject merchandise into the United States through evasion of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC.36

    36See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 9 and Exhibit 8. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 5-6 and Exhibit 9.

    With respect to the value of the merchandise produced in the PRC, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act, the petitioner provided information indicating that the value of cores and segments produced in the PRC represents the vast majority of the value of the products exported to the United States.37 We find that the evidence presented by the petitioner address the requirements of this factor, as discussed above, for the purposes of initiating this anti-circumvention inquiry.38

    37See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 20. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 16-17 and Exhibits 5-6.

    38See, e.g., the petitioner's supplemental response at Exhibits 5-6 and 9.

    In the final determinations of the antidumping duty investigations of diamond sawblades from the PRC and the Republic of Korea (Korea), we determined that the country in which cores and segments are joined is the country of origin of the finished diamond sawblades based on our factual findings that “the attachment process imparts the essential quality of the diamond sawblade, coupled with the substantial capital investment and technical expertise that is required for the attachment process.” 39 In making these factual findings, we relied on specific information provided by respondents in the investigations.40 The CIT upheld our decisions with respect to the country of origin.41 However, we do not have sufficient information on the record indicating whether substantial investments have been made to the Thai companies in question for the joining process in Thailand. Also, we do not have sufficient information on the record about the technical expertise required for the joining process in Thailand.42 Moreover, our findings in the Final Determinations were made in the context of a country-of-origin determination, whereas we are considering the petitioner's request under the anti-circumvention provisions of the statute contained in section 781(b) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find the Final Determinations foreclose initiation of an anti-circumvention inquiry.

    39See Final Determination—China and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 4, and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 29310 (May 22, 2006) (Final Determination—Korea), and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 3 (collectively, Final Determinations).

    40Id.

    41See Advanced Tech. & Materials Co. v. United States, No. 09-00511, slip op. 11-122, at 7-10 (Ct. Int'l Trade Oct. 12, 2011) (upholding Final Determinations—China), and Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 06-00248, slip op. 13-130, at 23-25 (Ct. Intl Trade Oct. 24, 2013) (upholding Final Determinations—Korea).

    42See Clearon Corp. v. United States, No. 13-00073, slip op. 14-88, at 33, 2014 WL 3643332, at *14 (Ct. Int'l Trade July 24, 2014) (“Although Commerce can and does take into consideration its policies and methodologies as expressed in different administrative case precedent when making its determination, it cannot take the factual information underlying those decisions into consideration unless those facts are properly on the record of the proceeding before it.”).

    Finally, with respect to the additional factors listed under section 781(b)(3) of the Act, we find that the petitioner presented evidence indicating that shipments of finished diamond sawblades from Thailand to the United States increased since the imposition of the antidumping duty order, further supporting initiation of these anti-circumvention inquiries.43 Accordingly, in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act, we are initiating a formal anti-circumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC with respect to Diamond Tools.

    43See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at Exhibit 9.

    In connection with this anti-circumvention inquiry, in order to determine, among other things: (1) The extent to which PRC-sourced cores and segments are further processed into finished diamond sawblades in Thailand before the finished diamond sawblades are exported to the United States; and (2) whether the process of turning PRC-sourced cores and segments into finished diamond sawblades is minor or insignificant, the Department intends to issue questionnaires to solicit information from Diamond Tools related to these factors. The Department also intends to issue questionnaires to solicit information from Diamond Tools concerning its shipments of finished diamond sawblades to the United States and the origin of the imported cores and segments being joined into finished diamond sawblades. Failure to respond completely to the Department's requests for information may result in the application of partial or total facts available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, which may include adverse inferences pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.

    Based on these allegations, we are initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(h), with respect to such merchandise from Thailand as described above. Because we are initiating this anti-circumvention inquiry, we are not initiating a changed circumstances review.

    While we believe sufficient factual information has been submitted by the petitioner to support the initiation of an anti-circumvention inquiry, we do not find that the record supports the simultaneous issuance of a preliminary ruling. An anti-circumvention inquiry is typically complicated by its nature and can require information regarding production in both the country subject to the order and the third country in which the production of finished merchandise is completed. As we explained above, the Department intends to request additional information regarding the statutory criteria to determine whether shipments of finished diamond sawblades from Thailand are circumventing the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC. Thus, with further development of the record required before a preliminary ruling can be issued, the Department does not find it appropriate to issue a preliminary ruling at this time.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(e), the Department finds that the issue of whether a product is included within the scope of an order cannot be determined based solely upon the application and the descriptions of the merchandise. Accordingly, the Department will notify by mail all parties on the Department's scope service list of the initiation of this anti-circumvention inquiry. In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1)(i) and (ii), in this notice of initiation issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e), we have included a description of the product that is the subject of this anti-circumvention inquiry (i.e., diamond sawblades finished in Thailand by the joining of cores and segments from the PRC) and an explanation of the reasons for the Department's decision to initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry, as provided above. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties at the applicable rate for each unliquidated entry of the merchandise at issue, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of initiation of the inquiry.

    The Department will establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues. In accordance with section 781(f) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f)(5), the Department intends to issue its final determination within 300 days of the date of publication of this initiation.

    This notice is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(h).

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non‐exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26398 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On September 19, 2017, the United States Court of International Trade (the CIT) entered final judgment sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the Department) second remand results pertaining to 18th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for Hebei Golden Trading Co., Ltd. (Golden Bird) and Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda). The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results and partial rescission of the 18th antidumping duty administrative review and that the Department has amended the dumping margins found for Xinboda and Golden Bird.

    DATES:

    Applicable September 29, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chien-Min Yang, 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) 482-5484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 30, 2014, the Department published the Final Results pertaining to mandatory respondents Golden Bird and Xinboda, along with other exporters.1 In the Final Results, the Department selected the Philippines as the primary surrogate country and relied on total adverse facts available (AFA) with respect to Golden Bird and found that the company was part of the PRC-wide entity.2 The Department calculated a rate of $1.82 per kilogram for Xinboda.

    1See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 18th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 36721 (June 30, 2014) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).

    2See IDM.

    On November 30, 2015, the CIT remanded for the Department to: (1) Consider evidence on the record concerning Golden Bird's independence from government control to determine whether the company is entitled to separate rate status based solely on that evidence, and if so, to determine an appropriate dumping margin specific to Golden Bird, taking into consideration the Department's sustained determination to select total AFA and applying the law extant at the time of the Final Results; (2) reconsider its surrogate country selection in the light of the Court's ruling concerning its interpretation of “significant producer.” 3

    3See Fresh Garlic Producers Association v. United States, 121 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (CIT 2015).

    On February 29, 2016, the Department filed the Final Remand Results. 4 In accordance with the Final Remand Results, the Department found, under protest, that Golden Bird is not part of the PRC wide entity and assigned a new separate AFA rate of $2.24 per kilogram, which represented Xinboda's highest transaction-specific margin from the instant administrative review.5 The Department continued to find that the Philippines was a significant producer, taking into account the “comparative” analysis required by the Court and the specific facts of this case.6

    4See Memorandum to The File, “Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China,” (February 29, 2016) (Final Remand Results).

    5Id. at 6.

    6Id. at 6-11.

    On July 7, 2016, the CIT again remanded the Department's selection of the Philippines as a surrogate country.7 Per the Court's instructions, the Department reconsidered its surrogate country selection and, under protest, selected Ukraine as the primary surrogate country.8 The calculations performed with the new surrogate values resulted in a weighted-average dumping margin of $2.19 per kilogram for Xinboda. Since the Department recalculated a margin for Xinboda with a new surrogate country and new surrogate values, we updated Golden Bird's separate AFA rate to reflect Xinboda's highest-transaction specific margin using the new surrogate values. Accordingly, Golden Bird was assigned an updated AFA rate of $2.76 per kilogram.

    7See Fresh Garlic Producers Association v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (CIT 2016).

    8See Memorandum to The File, “Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, Fresh Garlic Producers Association, et al., v. United States, U.S. Court of International Trade, Consol. Ct. No. 14-00180, Slip Op. 16-68,” (January 10, 2017) (Second Remand Results).

    On September 19, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Second Remand Results with respect to the eighteenth administrative review of the AD order on fresh garlic from China.9

    9See Fresh Garlic Producers Association v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 17-127, Consol. Ct. No. 14-00180 (September 19, 2017) (Slip Op. 17-127).

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 10 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 11 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's September 19, 2017, final judgment sustaining the Second Remand Results constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results. 12 This notice is published in fulfillment of the Timken publication requirements.

    10See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

    11See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    12See Final Results.

    Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margins calculated for Xinboda and Golden Bird. Based on the Second Remand Results, as affirmed by the CIT, the revised dumping margin for Xinboda, from November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012, is $2.19 per kilogram. The separate AFA rate for Golden Bird from November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012, is $2.76 per kilogram.

    Because the CIT's ruling was not appealed, it represents a final and conclusive court decision, and accordingly the Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margins summarized above.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department will not update the cash deposit requirements for Golden Bird and Xinboda as they each have later-determined rates from subsequent administrative reviews.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 4, 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. 2017-26384 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-869] Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products (nickel-plated, flat-rolled steel) from Japan. The review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd (Toyo Kohan) and Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metals Corporation (NSSMC). The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016. As a result of our analysis of the comments and information received, these final results differ from the preliminary results of review. For the final weighted-average dumping margin, see the “Final Results of Review” section, below. Further, we continue to find that NSSMC had no reviewable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madeline Heeren, 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) 482-9179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On June 6, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published these results, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for these final results, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

    1See Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 82 FR 26046 (June 6, 2017) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan; 2015-2016,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products included in this order are flat-rolled, cold-reduced steel products, regardless of chemistry; whether or not in coils; either plated or coated with nickel or nickel-based alloys and subsequently annealed (i.e., “diffusion-annealed”); whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other metallic or nonmetallic substances; and less than or equal to 2.0 mm in nominal thickness. For purposes of this order, “nickel-based alloys” include all nickel alloys with other metals in which nickel accounts for at least 80 percent of the alloy by volume.

    Imports of merchandise included in the scope of this order are classified primarily under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7212.50.0000 and 7210.90.6000, but may also be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7210.70.6090, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7225.99.0090, or 7226.99.0180. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that NSSMC had no shipments during the POR.3 Following publication of the Preliminary Results, we received no comments from interested parties regarding this determination. As a result, and because the record contains no evidence to the contrary, we find that NSSMC made no shipments during the POR. Accordingly, consistent with the Department's practice, we intend to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by NSSMC, but exported by other parties without their own rate, at the all-others rate.4

    3See Preliminary Results, 82 FR at 26047, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 2-3.

    4See, e.g., Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989, 56990 (September 17, 2010).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at 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 Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Toyo Kohan. For a discussion of these changes, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of the Review

    The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows for the period May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016:

    Producer or exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd 1.59
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    For Toyo Kohan, because its weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the Department has calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates. We calculated importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty rates by aggregating the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and dividing each of these amounts by the total entered value associated with those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review where an importer-specific assessment is above de minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis.

    As noted in the “Final Determinaton of No Shipments” section, above, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by NSSMC but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.5 We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    5 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003)

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Toyo Kohan will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers 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 manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 45.42 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation.6 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    6See Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan: Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 30816, 30817 (May 29, 2014) (Order).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the period of review. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties did occur and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Order V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Classification of EP Sales as CEP Sales Comment 2: Using Lower of Cost Method or Market Rule for Overrun Production Costs Comment 3: The Department Should Correct Certain Clerical Errors in its Preliminary Results VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-26380 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On September 19, 2017, the United States Court of International Trade (the CIT) entered final judgment sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the Department) remand results pertaining to 19th antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for Hebei Golden Trading Co., Ltd. (Golden Bird) and Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda), and certain non-examined separate rate companies. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results and partial rescission of the 19th antidumping duty administrative review, and that the Department has assigned Xinboda and other non-examined separate rate companies Jinxiang Richfar Fruits & Vegetables Co, Ltd. (Jinxiang Richfar); Qingdao Lianghe International Trade Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Lianghe); Shandong Chenhe International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shandong Chenhe); and Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd. (Weifang Hongqiao) a dumping margin of $2.19 per kilogram.

    DATES:

    Applicable September 29, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chien-Min Yang, 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) 482-5484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On June 15, 2015, the Department published the Final Results pertaining to mandatory respondents Golden Bird and Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. (Hejia), along with other exporters, including non-examined separate rate companies Xinboda, Jinxiang Richfar, Qingdao Lianghe, Shandong Chenhe, and Weifang Hongqiao.1 The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013. In the Final Results, the Department relied on total adverse facts available (AFA) with respect to Golden Bird and Hejia, and found Golden Bird and Hejia to be part of the PRC-wide entity.2 The Department assigned a rate of $1.82 per kilogram for Xinboda and the other non-examined separate rate companies.3

    1See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 19th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 34141 (June 15, 2015) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).

    2See IDM.

    3Id.

    On July 27, 2016, the CIT remanded for the Department to consider evidence on the record concerning Golden Bird's independence from government control to determine whether the company is entitled to separate rate status.4 The Court ordered the Department to select a separate rate for the non-examined companies “by either employing a different reasonable method to calculate the separate rate, such as reopening the record to examine new mandatory respondents, reopening the record to collect information from which to calculate a reliable separate rate, or if it results in a non-punitive rate for separate respondents, adjusting the separate rate assigned based on the results of remand pursuant to {Fresh Garlic Producers Association v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (CIT 2016), arising out of the eighteenth administrative review of the AD order on fresh garlic from the PRC (FGPA II)}.” 5

    4See Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd., et al., v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 16-74, Consol. Ct. No. 15-00179 (July 27, 2016) (Garlic 19 Remand) at 30.

    5Id. at 30-31.

    On April 28, 2017, the Department filed the Final Remand Results, continuing to find Golden Bird ineligible for a separate rate.6 For non-examined separate companies, the Department determined that it would establish their rate by applying the updated separate rate determined in the remand of the 18th administrative review, pursuant to FGPA II. 7

    6See Memorandum to The File, “Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, U.S. Court of International Trade, Consol. Ct. No. 15-00179, Slip Op. 16-74” (April 28, 2016).

    7Id.

    On July 17, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Final Remand Results as to Golden Bird.8 On September 19, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Final Remand Results as to the separate rate applied to non-examined companies.9 Thus, the calculations performed with the new surrogate values resulted in a weighted-average dumping margin of $2.19 per kilogram and was assigned to Xinboda, Jinxiang Richfar, Qingdao Lianghe, Shandong Chenhe, and Weifang Hongqiao.

    8See Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd., et al., v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 17-86, Ct. No. 15-00182 (July 17, 2017).

    9See Fresh Garlic Producers Association, et al., v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 17-127, Consol. Ct. No. 14-00180 (September 19, 2017) (Slip Op. 17-127).

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 10 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 11 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's September 19, 2017, final judgment sustaining the Final Remand Results constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results. 12 This notice is published in fulfillment of the Timken publication requirements.

    10See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

    11See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    12See Final Results.

    Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margin calculated for Xinboda. Based on the Final Remand Results, as affirmed by the CIT, the revised dumping margin for Xinboda, from November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012, is $2.19 per kilogram. The $2.19 per kilogram dumping margin also applies to the following separate rate companies: Jinxiang Richfar, Qingdao Lianghe, Shandong Chenhe, and Weifang Hongqiao.

    Because the CIT's ruling was not appealed, it represents a final and conclusive court decision, and the Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margins summarized above.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department will issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP, adjusting the cash deposit rate for Jinxiang Richfar and Shandong Chenhe to $2.19/kg, effective September 29, 2017. The Department will not update the cash deposit requirements for Xinboda, Qingdao Lianghe, and Weifang Hongqiao as they each have later-determined rates from Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 21st Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 27230 (June 14, 2017).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 4, 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. 2017-26388 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Rescission, and Final Rescission, in Part, of the 22nd Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Reviews; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the 22nd administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and two concurrent new shipper reviews. The period of review (POR) for the administrative and new shipper reviews is November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016. The Department preliminarily determines that mandatory respondent, Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Zhengyang) sold subject merchandise to the United States at less than normal value (NV). We also preliminarily find that the review request made by the Coalition for Fair Trade in Garlic (the CFTG) was not valid, and accordingly have preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to seven companies, including the other mandatory respondent, Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. (Harmoni). The Department also preliminarily determines that the new shipper reviews respondents, Qingdao Joinseafoods Co., Ltd. and Join Food Ingredient Inc. (collectively, Join) and Zhengzhou Yudi Shengjin Agricultural Trade Co., Ltd. (Yudi), each made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathryn Wallace or Alexander Cipolla, 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) 482-6251 or (202) 482-4956.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves. Fresh garlic that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, and 0703.20.0090. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see “Scope of the Order” in the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

    1See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results, Preliminary Rescission, and Final Rescission, In Part, of the 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Reviews: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China” (November 30, 2017) (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    On January 13, 2017, the Department initiated a review of 35 companies in this administrative review.2 On April 13, 2017, review requests were timely withdrawn for six companies.3 In addition, as discussed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, one of the companies for which the review request was timely rescinded is a part of the QTF-Entity, which submitted a separate rate application. Accordingly, this company remains subject to review. Moreover, the Department inadvertently initiated a review of one company without a request. The Department is, therefore, partially rescinding this administrative review with respect to the companies listed in Appendix I, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 4294 (January 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice). For a list of the 35 companies, see 82 FR 4296-4297.

    3See Petitioners' Letter, “22nd Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China—Petitioners' Withdrawal of Certain Requests for Administrative Review,” (April 13, 2017).

    Preliminary Rescission of Administrative Review

    In addition, as discussed in depth at “Preliminary Rescission of Administrative Review” in the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has preliminarily determined that the review request from the CFTG was invalid, and is preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to the companies listed in Appendix II.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.214. Export prices were calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act; constructed export prices were calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    As discussed at “Preliminary Determination of No Shipments” in the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 14 companies timely filed “no shipment” certifications stating that they had no entries into the United States of subject merchandise during the POR. However, no review requests were submitted for five of these companies. Moreover, review requests were timely withdrawn for two of these companies. In addition, two of these companies are a part of the QTF-entity, which filed a separate rate certification, as discussed at “Separate Rate Status of the QTF-Entity” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Accordingly, the Department, consistent with its practice, requested that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conduct a query of potential shipments made by the remaining five companies. Based on the certifications by the remaining companies and our analysis of CBP information, we preliminarily determine that the companies listed in Appendix IV did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. In addition, the Department finds that consistent with its refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases, further discussed below, it is appropriate not to preliminarily rescind the administrative review, in part, in these circumstances, but rather to complete the administrative review with respect to these five companies, and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the administrative review.4

    4See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65694-95 (October 24, 2011); see also “Assessment Rates” section below.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify the information provided by respondents using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the producer's and exporter's facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results will be outlined in the verification report for the respective respondents after completion of the verification.

    Preliminary Determination of Separate Rates for Non-Selected Companies

    In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department employed a limited examination methodology, as it determined that it would not be practicable to examine individually all companies for which a review request was made.5 There were six exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC that have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate but were not selected for individual examination in this review. These six exporters are listed in Appendix III.

    5See Memorandum, “Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection Memorandum,” dated March 7, 2017.

    Neither the Act nor the Department's regulations address the establishment of the rate applied to individual companies not selected for examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volume of imports has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs the Department to use rates established for individually investigated producers and exporters, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available in investigations. In the administrative review, Zhengyang is the only reviewed respondent that received a weighted-average margin. Therefore, for the preliminary results, the Department has preliminarily determined to assign Zhengyang's margin to the non-selected separate-rate companies.

    PRC-Wide Entity

    The Department's policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.6 Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested, and the Department did not self-initiate, a review of the PRC-wide entity for this POR, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate (i.e., $4.71/kg) is not subject to change.7 Aside from the no shipments companies discussed below, and the companies for which the review is being rescinded, the Department considers all other companies for which a review was requested, and which did not preliminarily qualify for a separate rate, to be part of the PRC-wide entity. For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    6See 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).

    7See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 13th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29174 (June 19, 2009).

    Preliminary Results of Administrative Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the administrative review covering the period November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (dollars per
  • kilogram)
  • Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd 2.69 Jining Shunchang Import & Export Co., Ltd 2.69 Jinxiang Feiteng Import & Export Co., Ltd 2.69 Qingdao Sea-Line International Trading Co., Ltd 2.69 Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd 2.69 Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd 2.69 Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd 2.69
    Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the new shipper review covering the period November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (dollars per
  • kilogram)
  • Qingdao Joinseafoods Co., Ltd. and Join Food Ingredient Inc. 2.20 Zhengzhou Yudi Shengjin Agricultural Trade Co., Ltd 3.19
    Disclosure, Public Comment and Opportunity To Request a Hearing

    The Department intends to disclose the calculations used in our analyses to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted by interested parties no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in these proceedings and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.8 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.9 Any electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by the date and time it is due.

    8See 19 CFR 351.309. See also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. If a party requests a hearing, the Department will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.

    The Department intends to issue the final results of these reviews, 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.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions with respect to the companies for which this review is rescinded to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice. For the remaining companies subject to review, the Department will direct CBP to assess rates based on the per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of review.

    Pursuant to the Department's assessment practice in NME cases, for merchandise that was not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (i.e., at the individually-examined exporter's cash deposit rate), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.10

    10 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 4.71 U.S. dollars per kilogram; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    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 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 preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: November 29, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary of Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Companies for Which Administrative Reviews Have Been Rescinded 1. Jining Alpha Food Co., Ltd. 2. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd. 3. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. 4. Qingdao Joinseafoods Co., Ltd. and Join Food Ingredient Inc. 5. Zhengzhou Yudi Shengjin Agricultural Trade Co., Ltd. 6. Jinxiang Shengtai Fruits & Vegetables Co., Ltd. Appendix II Companies for Which Administrative Reviews Have Been Preliminarily Rescinded 1. Jinxiang Jinma Fruits Vegetables Products Co., Ltd 2. Juxian Huateng Food Co., Ltd. 3. Qingdao Hailize (Sea-Line) International Trading Co., Ltd. 4. Qingdao Jiuyihongrun Foods Co., Ltd. 5. Qingdao Ritai Food Co., Ltd. 6. Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. Ltd. 7. Zhonglian Nongchan Co., Ltd. Appendix III Non-Selected Separate Rate Companies 1. Jining Shunchang Import & Export Co., Ltd. 2. Jinxiang Feiteng Import & Export Co., Ltd. 3. Qingdao Sea-Line International Trading Co., Ltd. 4. Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd. 5. Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. 6. Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd. Appendix IV Companies That Have Certified No Shipments 1. Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. 2. Jining Shengtai Fruits & Vegetables Co., Ltd. 3. Jining Yifa Garlic Produce Co., Ltd. 4. Jinxiang Richfar Fruits & Vegetables Co., Ltd. 5. Shijiazhuang Goodman Trading Co., Ltd.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26378 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-904] Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 7, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Based on the timely withdrawal of the requests for review of certain companies, we are now rescinding this administrative review for the period April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017, with respect to 184 companies.

    DATES:

    Effective December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Anwesen or Jinny Ahn, 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) 482-0131 or (202) 482-0339, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 27, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the PRC.1 On April 3, 2017, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the PRC for the April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017 period of review (POR).2

    1Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 20988, dated April 27, 2017.

    2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 16163, dated April 3, 2017.

    On April 14, 2017, Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Sincere) requested a review of itself.3 On April 26, 2017, Tancarb Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Tancarb) requested a review of itself.4 On April 28, 2017, Calgon Carbon Corporation and Cabon Norit Americas Inc. (the petitioners) requested an administrative review of 207 companies; 5 Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. (Beijing Pacific) requested a review of itself; 6 and Carbon Activated Corporation (CA Corporation) requested reviews of Carbon Activated Tinanjin Co., Ltd. (CA Tianjin), Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited, Shanxi Sincere, Tancarb, and Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.7 On May 1, 2017, Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. (CA Tianjin),8 Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Datong Juqiang),9 Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. (Jilin Bright Future), 10 Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Lmited (Ningxia Mineral),11 Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Dapu),12 Shanxi DMD Corporation (Shanxi DMD),13 and Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanxi ITT),14 respectively, requested reviews of themselves individually.

    3See Shanxi Sincere's submission, “Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” dated April 14, 2017.

    4See Tancarb's submission, “Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review,” dated April 26, 2017.

    5See the petitioners' submission, “Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China—Petitioners' Request for Initiation of Tenth Administrative Review,” dated April 28, 2017 (Petitioners' Request for Review).

    6See Beijing Pacific's submission, “Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Administrative Review Request,” dated April 28, 2107.

    7See CA Corporation's submission, “Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” dated April 28, 2017.

    8See CA Tianjin's submission, “Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” dated May 1, 2017.

    9See Datong Juqiang's submission, “Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China; Request for Antidumping Administrative Review,” dated May 1, 2017.

    10See Jilin Bright Future's submission, “Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China Request for Antidumping Administrative Review,” dated May 1, 2017.

    11See Ningxia Mineral's submission, “Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China Request for Antidumping Administrative Review,” dated May 1, 2017.

    12 In the Initiation Notice, we listed both Shanxi Dapu International Co., Ltd. and Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd. because both company names had been requested to be reviewed by various interested parties; however, the former name was a result of a typographical error in Shanxi Dapu's request for review and the correct name of the company for which a review was requested is Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 26444 (June 7, 2017) (Initiation Notice); see also Petitioners' Request for Review and Shanxi Dapu's submission, “Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” dated May 1, 2017. We are continuing the review with respect to Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd.

    13See Shanxi DMD's submission, “Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” dated May 1, 2017.

    14See Shanxi ITT's submission, ” Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” dated May 1, 2017.

    On June 7, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department published in the Federal Register notice of initiation of an administrative review of the order on certain activated carbon from the PRC with respect to 209 companies.15 On September 5, 2017, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review for 185 companies.16 In the list of companies for which the petitioners withdrew their review request, Shanxi Dapu was the only company for which a party other than the petitioners had requested a review.

    15See Initiation Notice.

    16See the petitioners' submission, “10th Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China—Petitioners' Withrdrawal of Certain Requests for Administrative Review,” dated September 5, 2017.

    Partial Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the petitioners timely withdrew their review request, in part, by the 90-day deadline. Out of the 185 companies for which the petitioners withdrew their review request, one company requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order for itself. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the PRC for the period April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, with respect to the 184 companies for which all review requests were withdrawn, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The review will continue with respect to the remaining 24 companies for which reviews were requested.17

    17 For a list of these companies, see Attachment. Because in the Initiation Notice Shanxi Dapu was listed twice, the review will continue with respect to 24 companies—not 25.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We intend to issue and publish this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: December 4, 2017. James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Attachment 1. Beijing Embrace Technology Co., Ltd. 2. Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 3. Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. 4. Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 5. Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 6. Jacobi Carbons AB 7. Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. 8. Meadwestvaco (China) Holding Co., Ltd. 9. Ningxia Guanghua A/C Co., Ltd. 10. Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 11. Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 12. Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 13. Ningxia Jirui Activated Carbon 14. Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited 15. Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd. 16. Shanxi DMD Corporation 17. Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. 18. Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. 19. Sinoacarbon International Trading Co, Ltd. 20. Tancarb Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 21. Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. 22. Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd. 23. Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd. 24. Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26386 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-971] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Review, in Part, and Intent To Rescind the Review, in Part; 2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of multilayered wood flooring (wood flooring) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis McClure or Jesus Saenz, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-5973 or 202-482-8184, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 8, 2011, the Department issued a countervailing duty (CVD) order on multilayered wood flooring from the PRC.1 Several interested parties requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the countervailing duty order, and on February 13, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the Order for 113 producers/exporters for the POR.2

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 76693 (December 8, 2011) (Order).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 10457 (February 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the Order is wood flooring from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3

    3See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: 2015” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. This review was initiated on February 13, 2017. Both Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd. (Dalian Penghong) and the petitioner withdrew their request for a review of Dalian Penghong on March 27, 2017, which was within the 90-day deadline.4 Therefore, because there are no remaining requests to review this company, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding this review with respect to Dalian Penghong.

    4See Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd.'s Letter, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China Withdrawal of Request for Review,” dated March 27, 2017; see also Coalition for American Hardwood Parity's (Petitioner) Letter, “Partial Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review” dated March 27, 2017.

    Intent To Rescind Administrative Review, in Part

    We received timely filed no-shipment certifications from four companies.5 The Department issued no-shipment inquiries to Customs Border Protection (CBP) requesting any information that may contradict the no-shipment claims. We have not received information to date from CBP that contradicts Changbai Mountain's, Jiangsu Yuhui's, Jiaxing Hentong Wood's, and Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan's claims of no sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.6 Because these companies timely filed their no-shipment certifications and CBP has not provided information that contradicts the companies' claims, we preliminarily intend to rescind the review of these companies. Absent any evidence of shipments being placed on the record, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we intend to rescind the administrative review of these companies in the final results of review.

    5See Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd.'s (Changbai Mountain) and Jiangsu Yuhui International Trade Co., Ltd.'s (Jiangsu Yuhui) Letter, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: No Shipments Certification,” dated March 1, 2017; Jiaxing Hengtong Wood Co., Ltd.'s (Jiaxing Hengtong Wood) Letter, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: No Sales Certification,” dated March 13, 2017; Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan New Material Technology Co., Ltd.'s (Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan) Letter, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: No Sales Certification,” dated March 13, 2017.

    6See Memorandum, “Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Relating to No Shipment Claims Made in the 2015 Administrative Review of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China,” dated September 25, 2017, (stating that the CBP no-shipment data query identified entries of subject merchandise by Jiangsu Keri Wood, but did not identify entries of subject merchandise by Changbai Mountain, Jiangsu Yuhui, Jiaxing Hentong Wood, and Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan).

    Jiangsu Keri Wood and Linyi Bonn also timely filed no-shipment certifications.7 However, both companies subsequently withdrew their no-shipment submissions.8 Therefore, we are continuing to include Linyi Bonn and Jiangsu Keri Wood in this administrative review for purposes of the preliminary results.

    7See Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd.'s (Jiangsu Keri Wood) Letter, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: No Shipments Certification,” dated March 2, 2017; Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd.'s (Linyi Bonn) Letter, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: No Shipments Certification,” dated March 3, 2017.

    8See Jiangsu Keri Wood's Letter, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Comments on No Shipments Letter,” dated September 29, 2017; Linyi Bonn's Letter, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of No Shipments Certification,” dated June 12, 2017.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that confers a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.9 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    9See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department 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 topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix to this notice.

    In making these preliminary results, the Department relied, in part, on facts otherwise available.10 For further information, see “Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR)” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    10See section 776(a) of the Act.

    Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review

    There are 105 companies for which a review was requested and not rescinded, and which were not selected as mandatory respondents. For these companies, we are preliminarily applying the rate of mandatory respondent, Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture), which is above de minimis. For further information on the calculation of the non-selected rate, refer to the section in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum entitled, “Preliminary Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review.”

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for each of the mandatory respondents, Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Senmao) and Fine Furniture, and their cross-owned affiliates where applicable.

    We preliminarily find the countervailable subsidy rates for the mandatory respondents under review to be as follows:

    Producer/exporter Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co., Ltd * 0.06 Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited 0.89 A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd 0.89 Anhui Boya Bamboo & Wood Products Co., Ltd 0.89 Anhui Longhua Bamboo Product Co., Ltd 0.89 Anhui Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Baishan Huafeng Wood Product Co., Ltd 0.89 Baiying Furniture Manufacturer Co., Ltd 0.89 Benxi Wood Company 0.89 Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd 0.89 Cheng Hang Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Chinafloors Timber (China) Co. Ltd 0.89 Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Dalian Huade Wood Product Co., Ltd 0.89 Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd 0.89 Dalian Jaenmaken Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Dalian Jiahong Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Dalian Jiuyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Dalian Xinjinghua Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC 0.89 Dongtai Zhangshi Wood Industry Co. Ltd 0.89 Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Dunhua Shengda Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Fu Lik Timber (HK) Co., Ltd 0.89 Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd 0.89 Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd 0.89 GTP International Ltd 0.89 Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Guangzhou Homebon Timber Manufacturing Co., Ltd 0.89 Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd 0.89 Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd 0.89 HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd 0.89 HaiLin XinCheng Wooden Products, Ltd 0.89 Hangzhou Dazhuang Floor Co., Ltd 0.89 Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd 0.89 Hangzhou Huahi Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Huber Engineering Wood Corp 0.89 Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Hunchun Xingjia Wooden Flooring Inc 0.89 Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Hunchun Xingjia Wooden Flooring Inc 0.89 Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Huzhou City Nanxun Guangda Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 0.89 Huzhou Fuma Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Huzhou Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd 0.89 Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd 0.89 Huzhou Muyun Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co., Ltd 0.89 Jiashan Huijiale Decoration Material Co., Ltd 0.89 Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 0.89 Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd 0.89 Jiangsu Kentier Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co 0.89 Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd 0.89 Jiashan On-Line Lumber Co., Ltd 0.89 Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd 0.89 Jilin Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Karly Wood Product Limited 0.89 Kember Flooring, Inc 0.89 Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 0.89 Kingman Floors Co., Ltd 0.89 Les Planchers Mercier, Inc 0.89 Linyi Anying Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd 0.89 Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc 0.89 Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd 0.89 Pinge Timber Manufacturing (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 0.89 Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd. (Exp) 0.89 Qingdao Barry Flooring Co., Ltd 0.89 Shandong Kaiyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Shanghai Anxin (Weiguang) Timber Co., Ltd 0.89 Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd 0.89 Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./
  • The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai
  • 0.89
    Shanghai New Sihe Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Shanghai Shenlin Corporation 0.89 Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd 0.89 Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd 0.89 Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd 0.89 Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd 0.89 Vicwood Industry (Suzhou) Co. Ltd 0.89 Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd 0.89 Xuzhou Antop International Trade Co., Ltd 0.89 Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Yekalon Industry, Inc. (Exp) 0.89 Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd 0.89 Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry 0.89 Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Zhejiang Dadongwu Green Home Wood Co., Ltd 0.89 Zhejiang Desheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd 0.89 Zhejiang Fuerjia Wooden Co., Ltd 0.89 Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd 0.89 Zhejiang Haoyun Wooden Co., Ltd 0.89 Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd 0.89 Zhejiang Simite Wooden Co., Ltd 0.89 Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd 0.89 * De minimis.
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of publication of these preliminary results.11 Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) on the preliminary results no later than 30 days from the date of publication of this Federal Register notice, and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    11See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    12See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d)(1).

    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 within 30 days of 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 parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.13 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    13See 19 CFR 351.310.

    Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due 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 publication of these preliminary results.

    Assessment Rates

    Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. For Dalian Penghong for which this review is rescinded, the Department will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each of the respective companies listed above. 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. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background A. Case History B. Postponement of Preliminary Results C. Period of Review D. Rescission of Review, In Part E. Intent to Rescind, in Part, the Administrative Review III. Scope of the Order IV. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Application of Adverse Inferences V. Subsidies Valuation A. Allocation Period B. Attribution of Subsidies C. Denominators D. Discount Rates VI. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Countervailable B. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Not Used VII. Preliminary Ad Valorem Rate for Non-Selected Companies Under Review VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-26381 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-469-816] Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Spain: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

    SUMMARY:

    On October 31, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary determination of the less-than-fair-value investigation of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Spain. The Department is amending its preliminary determination to correct a significant ministerial error.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chelsey Simonovich, 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) 482-1979.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 31, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination1 of the less-than-fair-value investigation of wire rod from Spain. On November 6, 2017, Global Steel Wire S.A., CELSA Atlantic S.A., and Companía Española de Laminación (collectively, CELSA) alleged that the Department made a significant ministerial error in the Preliminary Determination. 2

    1See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Spain: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part, 82 FR 50390 (October 31, 2017) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See CELSA's November 6, 2017 letter, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Spain: Significant Ministerial Errors Contained in the Preliminary Determination” (Ministerial Error Allegation).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is wire rod from Spain. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice.

    Significant Ministerial Error

    A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” A significant ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(g) as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in: (1) A change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination; or (2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or de minimis and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than de minimis or vice versa. Further, 19 CFR 351.224(e) provides that the Department “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination.”

    Ministerial Error Allegation

    CELSA alleges that the Department double-counted the international freight expenses in the calculation of U.S. net prices, increasing the amount deducted for international movement costs, and increasing the dumping margin. CELSA maintains that correcting this error results in a decrease of more than five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin, thereby meeting the definition of “significant” pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1).3 Additionally, CELSA alleges that the Department has misclassified direct selling expenses in the United States as indirect selling expenses incurred in Spain.

    3See Ministerial Error Allegation.

    We find that the Department unintentionally included international freight expenses twice when adjusting U.S. price for movement expense in the margin calculation program.4 The Department also unintentionally entered a variable used to capture indirect selling expenses in Spain in the program calculation for direct selling expenses in the United States.5 These errors constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).6 Moreover, correcting these ministerial error changes the margin from 20.25 percent to 10.61 percent, thereby making these errors significant ministerial errors within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1).7

    4See Department Memorandum: “Preliminary Determination Calculation for Global Steel Wire Rod, CELSA Atlantic S.A., and Compania Espanola de Laminacion in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Spain,” dated October 24, 2017, at 8.

    5Id.

    6See DOC Memorandum: “Allegation and Analysis of Ministerial Error in the Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with this memorandum (Ministerial Error Analysis Memorandum).

    7See DOC Memorandum: “Amended Preliminary Determination Calculation for CELSA,” dated concurrently with this memorandum (Amended Calculation Memo).

    Amended Preliminary Determination

    We are amending the Preliminary Determination to reflect the correction of ministerial errors made in the margin calculation for CELSA. In addition, because the “All-Others” rate in the Preliminary Determination was based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for CELSA,8 we are, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), also amending the “All-Others” rate. As a result of the correction of the ministerial error, the revised weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    8See Preliminary Determination, 82 FR at 50390.

    Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Global Steel Wire S.A./CELSA Atlantic S.A./Companía Española de Laminación 10.61 All-Others 10.61
    Amended Cash Deposits and Suspension of Liquidation

    The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised according to the rates established in this amended preliminary determination, in accordance with section 733(d) and (f) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224. Because the rates are decreasing from the Preliminary Determination, the amended cash deposit rates will be effective retroactively to October 31, 2107, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination notice in the Federal Register.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the amended preliminary determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224.

    This amended preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.1 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorous, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

    The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-26401 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-880] Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Toby Vandall at (202) 482-1664, or Aimee Phelan at (202) 482-0697, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 18, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE resin) from India.1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than December 22, 2017.

    1See Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 49592 (October 26, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner 2 makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) the Department concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. The Department will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

    2 The petitioner is The Chemours Company FC LLC.

    On November 27, 2017, the petitioner submitted a timely request that the Department postpone the preliminary CVD determination.3 The petitioner stated that it requests postponement because of the complexity of the investigation and the schedule.4 Further, the petitioner stated that “the deadlines for responding to Sections II and III of the questionnaire fall after the scheduled preliminary determination. Without extending the preliminary determination, Chemours would be unable to comment on the responses or suggest follow-up questions prior to a preliminary determination. The Department would be similarly unable to issue supplemental questionnaires.” 5

    3See Letter from the petitioner, “Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from India: Petitioner's Request for Extension of the Countervailing Duty Investigation Preliminary Determination,” (November 27, 2017).

    4Id.

    5Id.

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination, and the Department finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated, i.e., to February 26, 2018.6 Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination.

    6 Postponing the preliminary determination to 130 days after initiation would place the deadline on Sunday, February 25, 2018. The Department's practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: November 30, 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. 2017-26382 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Open Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Board) will meet in open session on Wednesday, December 6, 2017. The purpose of this meeting is to review and discuss the work of the private sector contractor, which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in administering the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award), and information received from NIST and from the Chair of the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in order to make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as the Board deems necessary. Details on the agenda are noted in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 6, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. Eastern time until 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting will be open to the public.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Building 101, Lecture Room D, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1020, telephone number (301) 975-2360, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Board will meet in open session on Wednesday, December 6, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. Eastern time until 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. The Board is currently composed of eleven members selected for their preeminence in the field of organizational performance excellence and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Board consists of a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, small business, nonprofit, education, and health care industries. The Board includes members familiar with the quality, performance improvement operations, and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, nonprofits, health care providers, and educational institutions. The purpose of this meeting is to review and discuss the work of the private sector contractor, which assists the NIST Director in administering the Award, and information received from NIST and from the Chair of the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in order to make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as the Board deems necessary. The Board shall make an annual report on the results of Award activities to the Director of NIST, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process. The agenda will include: Report from the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, Baldrige Program Business Plan Status Report, Baldrige Foundation Fundraising Update, Products and Services Update, and Recommendations for the NIST Director. The agenda may change to accommodate Board business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Baldrige Performance Excellence Web site at http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/community/overseers.cfm. The meeting will be open to the public.

    Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Board's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On December 6, 2017 approximately one-half hour will be reserved in the afternoon for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the Baldrige Web site at http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/community/overseers.cfm. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak, but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899-1020, via fax at 301-975-4967 or electronically by email to [email protected]

    All visitors to the National Institute of Standards and Technology site must pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Robyn Verner no later than 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, Wednesday, December 6, 2017 and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information and should contact Ms. Verner for instructions. Ms. Verner's email address is [email protected] and her phone number is (301) 975-2361. Please note that federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), or by a state that has an extension for REAL ID compliance. NIST currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Ms. Verner or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), this Federal Register notice for this meeting is being published fewer than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting as exceptional circumstances exist. It is imperative that the meeting be held on December 6, 2017 to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Notice of the meeting is also posted on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Web site at: https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/how-baldrige-works/baldrige-community/board-overseers.

    Kevin Kimball, NIST Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26455 Filed 12-5-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF864 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; availability of evaluation of joint state/tribal harvest plan and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and the Skagit River System Cooperative and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have jointly submitted a steelhead fishery resource management plan (RMP) to NMFS pursuant to the limitation on take prohibitions for actions conducted under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule for salmon and steelhead promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The plan proposes to manage the harvest of natural-origin Skagit River (Washington State) steelhead as an independent steelhead management unit within the ESA-listed Puget Sound steelhead demographic population segment (DPS). The Plan proposes to implement these Skagit River steelhead fisheries pursuant to U.S. v. Washington. This document serves to notify the public of the availability for comment of the proposed evaluation and pending determination of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) as to whether the RMP meets the criteria under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule and as to whether implementation of the RMP will appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of ESA-listed Puget Sound steelhead and Puget Sound Chinook salmon.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received at the appropriate address (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the proposed evaluation and pending determination should be addressed to James Dixon, NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 510 Desmond Drive, Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503. Comments may be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is: [email protected] Include in the subject line of the email comment the following identifier: Comments on Skagit River Steelhead Harvest Plan.

    The documents are available on the Internet at www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov. Comments received will also be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by calling (360) 753-9579.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Dixon at (360) 534-9329 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ESA-Listed Species Covered in This Notice

    Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Puget Sound.

    Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Puget Sound.

    Background

    The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and the Skagit River System Cooperative and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have jointly submitted a steelhead fishery RMP to NMFS pursuant to the limitation on take prohibitions for actions conducted under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule for salmon and steelhead promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The plan was submitted in November of 2016, pursuant to limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. The RMP would manage the harvest of Skagit River natural-origin steelhead in the Skagit River and in the terminal marine area of the Skagit River (Marine Area 8).

    As required by the ESA 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005), the Secretary is seeking public comment on this proposed evaluation and pending determination as to whether the RMP meets the criteria under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule and as to whether implementation of the RMP will appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of ESA-listed Puget Sound steelhead and Puget Sound Chinook.

    Authority

    Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. Limit 6 of the updated 4(d) Rule (50 CFR 223.203(b)(6)) further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the updated 4(d) Rule (50 CFR 223.203(a)) do not apply to activities associated with a joint state/tribal artificial propagation plan provided that the joint plan has been determined by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005).

    Dated: November 29, 2017. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26354 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF871 Marine Mammals; File No. 21339 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Kerri Smith, University of Texas at El Paso, 500 West University Ave., El Paso, Texas 79968, has applied in due form for a permit to receive, import and export marine mammal specimens for scientific research.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 21339 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. 21339 in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The applicant proposes to receive, import, and export samples from up to 150 Sowerby's beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens) and 130 samples from 13 other species of non-ESA listed cetaceans. The objectives of this research are to: (a) Investigate life history characteristics of these species using stable isotope analysis; and (b) improve techniques of stable isotope analysis in marine mammal studies. Samples would include bone, teeth, baleen, and muscle tissue from museum and research collections. No takes of live animals would be authorized under this permit. The permit would be valid for up to five years after issuance.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: December 4, 2017. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26391 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [Docket ID: USN-2017-HQ-0004] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Navy Access Control Management System (NACMS) and the U.S. Marine Corps Biometric and Automated Access Control System (BAACS); the associated Form is SECNAV 5512/1 Department of the Navy Local Population ID Card/Base Access Pass Registration Form; OMB Control Number 0703-0061.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 4.9 million.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 4.9 million.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 816,667.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to control physical access to Department of Defense (DoD), Department of the Navy (DON) or U.S. Marine Corps Installations/Units controlled information, installations, facilities, or areas over which DoD, DON or U.S. Marine Corps has security responsibilities by identifying or verifying an individual through the use of biometric databases and associated data processing/information services for designated populations for purposes of protecting U.S./Coalition/allied government/national security areas of responsibility and information; to issue badges, replace lost badges and retrieve passes upon separation; to maintain visitor statistics; collect information to adjudicate access to facility; and track the entry/exit of personnel.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: Daily.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: December 4, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26372 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Request for Comments on the Draft Fiscal Year 2018 Through Fiscal Year 2022 Strategic Plan AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The DNFSB is requesting public comments on its draft Fiscal Year 2018 through Fiscal Year 2022 Strategic Plan (Draft Strategic Plan).

    DATES:

    The public may comment on this plan from December 4, 2018 to December 17, 2018. All comments must be received or postmarked by December 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: DNFSB, Re: Draft Strategic Plan, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004.

    Instructions: All comments must reference the specific section of the Draft Strategic Plan to which the comment applies. Please be as specific as possible regarding comments to the Draft Strategic Plan, and present the reasoning for the proposed change.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Herrera, Deputy General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202) 369-7000.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 230.16 of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, the DNFSB is seeking public comment on its Draft Strategic Plan. The Draft Strategic Plan will be posted on the DNFSB Web site at https://www.dnfsb.gov from December 4, 2018 to December 17, 2018.

    Dated: November 27, 2017. Sean Sullivan, Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26387 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0153] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; HBCU All Star Student Program AGENCY:

    Department of Education (ED), Office of the Secretary (OS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0153. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-32, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Elyse Jones, 202-453-5627.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: HBCU All Star Student Program.

    OMB Control Number: 1894-0016.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 202.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 706.

    Abstract: This program was designed to recognize current HBCU students for their dedication to academics, leadership and civic engagement. Nominees were asked to submit a nomination package containing a signed nomination form, unofficial transcripts, short essay, resume, and endorsement letter. Items in this package provide the tools necessary to select current HBCU students who are excelling academically and making differences in their community.

    Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26429 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Northern Tier Transmission Group, whose members include NorthWestern Corporation, Deseret Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc., Portland General Electric Company, Idaho Power Company, PacifiCorp, and MATL LLP:

    Northern Tier Transmission Group Quarter 8 Stakeholder Meeting December 7, 2017 10:00 a.m.—1:45 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time)

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: UAMPS Offices, 155 N 400 West, Suite 480, Salt Lake City, UT 84103.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at this link.

    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceeding:

    Docket Nos. ER18-61-000, Portland General Electric Company ER18-62-000, MATL LLP ER18-63-000, Idaho Power Company ER18-66-000, PacifiCorp ER18-67-000, Portland General Electric Company ER18-69-000, NorthWestern Corporation ER18-72-000, Deseret Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc.

    For more information, contact Navin Shekar ([email protected], 202-502-6297), or Patricia Dalton ([email protected], 202-502-8044) at the Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26395 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-365-000] Access Energy Solutions, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Access Energy Solutions, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 21, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26394 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-210-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Cherokee AGL—Replacement Shippers—Dec 2017 to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5094.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-211-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20171130 Negotiated Rate to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-212-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Neg Rate Agmts (Devon 10, Enterprise 12, BP 37) to be effective 11/30/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-213-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (RE Gas 35433, 34955 to BP 36803, 36804) to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-214-000.

    Applicants: Mojave Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Fuel and L&U Filing 2018 to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-215-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (PH 41455 to NextEra 48678, Texla 48792) to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-216-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Atlanta Gas 8438 to various eff 12-1-17) to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-217-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2017-11-30 BP(2), Encana to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-218-000.

    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2017-11-30 Morgan Stanley to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-219-000.

    Applicants: Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Nautilus Changes to FT-2 3.8 to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-220-000.

    Applicants: Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Nautilus contact info change to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-221-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate Gathering Agreements to be effective 6/9/2010.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5212.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-222-000.

    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements Schedule to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-223-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Neg Rate Agmts (Entergy 35233-6, Mobile 38531-5) to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5017.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26393 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-696-006.

    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: LBA Compliance Errata ER14-696 12-1-2017 to be effective 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5251.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-697-007.

    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: LBA Compliance Errata ER14-697 12-1-2017 to be effective. 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5254.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-699-007

    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: LBA Compliance Errata ER14-699 11-30-2017 to be effective 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-702-006.

    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: LBA Compliance Errata ER14-702 12-1-2017 to be effective 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-703-006.

    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: LBA Compliance Errata ER14-701 12-1-2017 to be effective 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-703-007.

    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: LBA Compliance Errata ER14-703 12-1-2017 to be effective 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5165.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-704-006.

    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: LBA Compliance Errata ER14-704 12-1-2017 to be effective 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2952-005.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Report Filing: 2017-12-01_PIPP SSR Refund Report Plan to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-558-001.

    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing OATT Att G NOA to be effective 2/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-192-001.

    Applicants: Dynegy Oakland, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deferral of Commission Action to Permit Ongoing Settlement Discussions to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-363-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL-FPUC-Original Service Agreement No. 337-NITSA and NOA to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-364-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-11-30_Revisions to LRZ for the States of Louisiana and Texas to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20171130-5223.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-365-000.

    Applicants: Access Energy Solutions, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 1/29/2018.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-366-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-12-1_SA 2022 Ameren-Kirkwood 1st Rev WDS to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-367-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-12-1_Ameren-RECC WCA/UCA/WDS to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5067.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-368-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: LGIA Arlington Solar, LLC Service Agreement No. 205, TOT781 to be effective 1/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-369-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notices of Cancellation GIA and Distrib Serv Agmt Ellwood Storage Project to be effective 1/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-370-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TO Tariff Amendment New Appendix XI to be effective 3/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-371-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Installed Capacity Requirements, Hydro-Quebec Interconnection Capability Credits and Related Values for 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2010/2021 Annual Reconfiguration Auctions of ISO New England, Inc., et al.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-372-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Memorandum of Agreement on the Pacific Direct Current Intertie to be effective 2/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-373-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits Engineering and Construction Services Agreement SA No. 4716 to be effective 1/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5253.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF18-30-000.

    Applicants: Flambeau Solar Partners, LLC.

    Description: Refund Report of Flambeau Solar Partners, LLC.

    Filed Date: 12/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20171201-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26392 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Loveland Area Projects—Rate Order No. WAPA-179 AGENCY:

    Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of order concerning firm electric service and sale of surplus products formula rates.

    SUMMARY:

    The Deputy Secretary of Energy confirmed and approved Rate Order No. WAPA-179 and Rate Schedules L-F11 and L-M2, placing firm electric service and sale of surplus products formula rates for the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Loveland Area Projects (LAP) into effect on an interim basis (Provisional Formula Rates).

    DATES:

    The Provisional Formula Rate Schedules L-F11 and L-M2 are effective on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and will remain in effect through December 31, 2022, pending confirmation and approval by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on a final basis or until superseded.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael D. McElhany, Regional Manager, Rocky Mountain Region, Western Area Power Administration, 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, CO 80538-8986, telephone (970) 461-7201, or Mrs. Sheila D. Cook, Rates Manager, Rocky Mountain Region, Western Area Power Administration, 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, CO 80538-8986, telephone (970) 461-7211, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Firm Electric Service

    On December 2, 2014, the Deputy Secretary of Energy approved, on an interim basis, Rate Schedule L-F10 under Rate Order No. WAPA-167 for a 5-year period beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2019 (79 FR 72663-72670 (Dec. 8, 2014)).1 This rate schedule is formula-based, providing for adjustments to the Drought Adder component.2 On January 1, 2017, the Drought Adder component of the LAP effective rate schedule was adjusted downward, recognizing repayment of drought costs included in the Drought Adder component of the approved formula rates. Under Rate Schedule L-F10 with adjusted Drought Adder component as of January 1, 2017, the composite rate is 36.56 mills per kilowatt-hour (mills/kWh) (a Base component of 29.90 mills/kWh and a Drought Adder component of 6.66 mills/kWh), the firm energy rate is 18.28 mills/kWh, and the firm capacity rate is $4.79 per kilowatt-month (kWmonth).

    1 FERC confirmed and approved Rate Order WAPA-167 on a final basis on June 25, 2015, in Docket No. EF15-4-000. See United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration (Loveland Area Projects), 151 FERC ¶ 62,222.

    2 The Drought Adder component is a formula-based revenue requirement that includes future purchase power above timing purchases, previous purchase power drought deficits, and interest on the purchase power drought deficits. See 72 FR 64061 (November 14, 2007). The Drought Adder was added as a component to the energy and capacity rates in Rate Order No. WAPA-134, which was approved by the Deputy Secretary on an interim basis on November 14, 2007, (72 FR 64061). FERC confirmed and approved Rate Order WAPA-134 on a final basis on May 16, 2008, in Docket No. EF08-5181. See United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration (Loveland Area Projects), 123 FERC ¶ 62,137. WAPA reviews the Drought Adder component each September to determine if drought costs differ from those projected in the Power Repayment Study and whether an adjustment to the Drought Adder component is necessary. See 72 FR 64065. The Drought Adder component may be adjusted downward using the approved annual Drought Adder adjustment process, whereas an incremental upward adjustment to the Drought Adder component greater than the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh requires a public rate process. See 72 FR 64065.

    Effective January 1, 2018, WAPA is adjusting the overall composite rate, which is reflected in adjustments to the formula-based charge components. The Drought Adder component will go down to zero and the Base component will be adjusted upward to reflect present costs attributed to both charge components. Rate Schedule L-F10 is being superseded by Rate Schedule L-F11. Under Rate Schedule L-F11, the Provisional Formula Rates for firm electric service will result in a composite rate of 31.44 mills/kWh (a Base component of 31.44 mills/kWh and a Drought Adder component of 0 mills/kWh), the firm energy rate will be 15.72 mills/kWh, and the firm capacity rate will be $4.12/kWmonth. This is a 14 percent decrease when compared to the LAP firm electric rates under Rate Schedule L-F10.

    Sale of Surplus Products

    On August 12, 2016, the Deputy Secretary of Energy approved, on an interim basis, Rate Schedule L-M1 under Rate Order No. WAPA-174, for a 5-year period beginning October 1, 2016, and ending September 30, 2021 (81 FR 56632-56652 (August 22, 2016)).3 This Rate Schedule is formula-based, providing for LAP Marketing to sell LAP surplus energy and capacity products; currently reserves, regulation, and frequency response. If LAP surplus products are available, the charge for each product will be determined based on market rates plus administrative costs. The customer will be responsible for acquiring transmission service necessary to deliver the product(s), for which a separate charge may be incurred. Rate Schedule L-M1 is being superseded by Rate Schedule L-M2. Rate Schedule L-M2 will include “energy” as a fourth surplus product offered under this rate schedule.

    3 FERC confirmed and approved Rate Order WAPA-174 on a final basis on March 9, 2017, in Docket Nos. EF16-5-000 and EF16-5-001. See United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration (Loveland Area Projects), 158 FERC ¶ 62,181.

    Legal Authority

    By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to the Administrator of WAPA; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to FERC. Federal rules (10 CFR part 903) govern DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments.

    Under Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00B and 00-001.00F and in compliance with 10 CFR part 903 and 18 CFR part 300, I hereby confirm, approve, and place Rate Order No. WAPA-179, which provides the formula rates for LAP firm electric service and sale of surplus products, into effect on an interim basis. The new Rate Schedules L-F11 and L-M2 will be submitted to FERC for confirmation and approval on a final basis.

    Dated: November 30, 2017. Dan Brouillette, Deputy Secretary of Energy. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPUTY SECRETARY

    In the matter of: Western Area Power Administration Rate Adjustment for the Loveland Area Projects

    Rate Order No. WAPA-179
    ORDER CONFIRMING, APPROVING, AND PLACING THE LOVELAND AREA PROJECTS FIRM ELECTRIC SERVICE AND SALE OF SURPLUS PRODUCTS FORMULA RATES INTO EFFECT ON AN INTERIM BASIS

    The firm electric service and sale of surplus products rates for the Loveland Area Projects (LAP) set forth in this order are established in accordance with section 302 of the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152). This Act transferred to, and vested in, the Secretary of Energy the power marketing functions of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)) and section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and other acts that specifically apply to the projects involved.

    By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) the authority to develop power and transmission rates to the Administrator of Western Area Power Administration (WAPA); (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Federal rules (10 CFR part 903) govern DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments.

    Acronyms, Terms, and Definitions

    As used in this Rate Order, the following acronyms, terms, and definitions apply:

    Base: A fixed revenue requirement that includes O&M expenses, investments and replacements, interest on investments and replacements, normal timing power purchases (purchases due to operational constraints, not associated with drought), and transmission costs.

    Capacity: The electric capability of a generator, transformer, transmission circuit, or other equipment. It is expressed in kilowatts.

    Capacity Rate: The rate which sets forth the charges for capacity. It is expressed in dollars per kilowatt-month and applied to each kilowatt of the Contract Rate of Delivery (CROD).

    Composite Rate: The Power Repayment Study (PRS) rate for commercial firm power, which is the total annual revenue requirement for capacity and energy divided by the total annual energy sales. It is expressed in mills per kilowatt-hour and used only for comparison purposes.

    Customer: An entity with a contract that is receiving firm electric service from WAPA.

    Deficits: Deferred or unrecovered annual and/or interest expenses.

    DOE Order RA 6120.2: An order outlining power marketing administration financial reporting and rate-making procedures.

    Drought Adder: A formula-based revenue requirement that includes future purchase power above timing purchases, previous purchase power drought deficits, and interest on the purchase power drought deficits.

    Energy: Measured in terms of the work it is capable of doing over a period of time. Electric energy is expressed in kilowatt-hours.

    Energy Charge: The charge under the rate schedule for energy. It is expressed in mills per kilowatt-hour and applied to each kilowatt-hour delivered to each Customer.

    Firm: A type of product and/or service always available at the time requested by a Customer.

    FY: Fiscal year; October 1 to September 30.

    kW: Kilowatt—the electrical unit of capacity that equals 1,000 watts.

    kWh: Kilowatt-hour—the electrical unit of energy that equals 1,000 watts in 1 hour.

    kWmonth: Kilowatt-month—the electrical unit of the monthly amount of capacity.

    mills/kWh: Mills per kilowatt-hour—the unit of charge for energy (equal to one tenth of a cent or one thousandth of a dollar).

    MW: Megawatt—the electrical unit of capacity that equals 1 million watts or 1,000 kilowatts.

    Non-timing Power Purchases: Power purchases that are not related to operational constraints such as management of endangered species, species habitat, water quality, navigation, control area purposes, etc.

    O&M: Operation and Maintenance.

    P-SMBP: The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program.

    P-SMBP—ED: Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division.

    P-SMBP—WD: Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Western Division.

    Power: Capacity and energy.

    Power Factor: The ratio of real to apparent power at any given point and time in an electrical circuit. Generally, it is expressed as a percentage.

    Preference: The provisions of Reclamation Law that require WAPA to first make Federal Power available to certain entities. For example, section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)) states that preference in the sale of Federal Power shall be given to municipalities and other public corporations or agencies and also to cooperatives and other nonprofit organizations financed in whole or in part by loans made under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

    Provisional Formula Rate: A formula rate confirmed, approved, and placed into effect on an interim basis by the Deputy Secretary of Energy.

    Ratesetting PRS: The Power Repayment Study used for the rate adjustment period.

    Regions: WAPA's Rocky Mountain Region (RMR) and Upper Great Plains Region (UGP).

    Revenue Requirement: The revenue required by the PRS to recover annual expenses (such as O&M, purchase power, transmission service expenses, interest, and deferred expenses) and repay Federal investments and other assigned costs.

    Effective Date

    The Provisional Formula Rate Schedules L-F11 and L-M2 will take effect on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and will remain in effect through December 31, 2022, pending approval by FERC on a final basis or until superseded.

    Public Notice and Comment

    WAPA followed the Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions, 10 CFR part 903, in developing these rates and schedules. The steps WAPA took to involve interested parties in the rate process were:

    1. A Federal Register notice, published on July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30856) (Proposal FRN), announced the proposed rates for LAP and began the 90-day public consultation and comment period.

    2. On July 5, 2017, WAPA emailed letters to LAP Preference Customers and interested parties transmitting a copy of the Proposal FRN.

    3. On August 22, 2017, at 9 a.m. (MDT), WAPA held a public information forum at the Denver Embassy Suites, 7000 Yampa Street, Denver, Colorado. WAPA provided updates to the proposed firm electric service and sale of surplus products formula rates for both LAP and P-SMBP—ED. WAPA also answered questions and gave notice that more information was available in the customer rate brochure.

    4. On August 22, 2017, at 11 a.m. (MDT), following the public information forum, at the same location, WAPA held a public comment forum to provide an opportunity for customers and other interested parties to comment for the record. No oral or written comments were received at this forum.

    5. On August 23, 2017, at 9 a.m. (CDT), WAPA held a public information forum at the Holiday Inn, 100 West 8th Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. WAPA provided updates to the proposed firm electric service and sale of surplus product formula rates for both the P-SMBP—ED and LAP. WAPA also answered questions and gave notice that more information was available in the customer rate brochure.

    6. On August 23, 2017, at 11 a.m. (CDT), following the public information forum, at the same location, a public comment forum was held. The comment forum gave the public an opportunity to comment for the record. Two oral comments were received at this forum.

    7. WAPA provided a website that contains all dates, customer letters, presentations, FRNs, customer brochure, and other information about this rate process. The website is located at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/RM/rates/Pages/2018-Rate-Adjustment-Firm-Power.aspx.

    8. During the 90-day consultation and comment period, which ended on October 2, 2017, WAPA received two oral comments (from the August 23 public comment forum). The comments and WAPA's responses are addressed below. All comments have been considered in the preparation of this Rate Order.

    Two representatives of the following organizations made oral comments:

    Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, Colorado Missouri River Energy Services, South Dakota Project Descriptions Loveland Area Projects

    The Post-1989 General Power Marketing and Allocation Criteria (Criteria), published in the Federal Register on January 31, 1986 (51 FR 4012), integrated the resources of the P-SMBP—WD and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project (Fry-Ark). This operational and contractual integration, known as LAP, allowed an increase in marketable resource, simplified contract administration, and established a blended rate for LAP power sales. WAPA markets LAP power in northeastern Colorado, east of the Continental Divide in Wyoming, west of the 101st meridian in Nebraska, and most of Kansas.

    The P-SMBP—WD and Fry-Ark retain separate financial status. For this reason, separate PRSs are prepared annually for each project. These PRSs are used to determine the sufficiency of the firm electric service rate to generate adequate revenue to repay project investment and costs during each project's prescribed repayment period. The revenue requirement of the Fry-Ark PRS is combined with the P-SMBP—WD revenue requirement, derived from the P-SMBP PRS, to develop one rate for LAP firm electric sales.

    Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Western Division

    The P-SMBP, originally the Missouri River Basin Project, was authorized by Congress in section 9 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (Pub. L. 534, 58 Stat. 887, 891). This multipurpose program provides flood control, irrigation, navigation, recreation, preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife, and power generation. Multipurpose projects have been developed on the Missouri River and its tributaries in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

    In addition to the multipurpose water projects authorized by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, certain other existing projects have been integrated with the P-SMBP for power marketing, operation, and repayment purposes. The Colorado-Big Thompson, Kendrick, Riverton, and Shoshone Projects were combined with the P-SMBP in 1954, followed by the North Platte Project in 1959. These projects are referred to as the “Integrated Projects” of the P-SMBP.

    The Flood Control Act of 1944 also authorized the inclusion of the Fort Peck Project with the P-SMBP for operation and repayment purposes. The Riverton Project was reauthorized as a unit of P-SMBP in 1970. Together the P-SMBP—WD and the Integrated Projects have 19 power plants.

    The P-SMBP is marketed by two Regions. The RMR, with a regional office in Loveland, Colorado, markets the Western Division power of P-SMBP through LAP to approximately 75 customers. The UGP Region, with a regional office in Billings, Montana, markets power from the Eastern Division of P-SMBP to approximately 340 customers.

    The adjustment to the P-SMBP—ED rate is in a separate formal rate process, which is documented in Rate Order No. WAPA-180. Rate Order No. WAPA-180 is also scheduled to go into effect on the first day of the first full billing period on or after January 1, 2018.

    Fryingpan-Arkansas Project

    Fry-Ark is a trans-mountain diversion development in southeastern Colorado authorized by the Act of Congress on August 16, 1962 (Pub. L. 87-590, 76 Stat. 389, as amended by Title XI of the Act of Congress on October 27, 1974 (Pub. L. 93-493, 88 Stat. 1486, 1497)). The Fry-Ark diverts water from the Fryingpan River and other tributaries of the Roaring Fork River in the Colorado River Basin on the Western Slope of the Rocky Mountains to the Arkansas River on the Eastern Slope of the Rocky Mountains. The water diverted from the Western Slope, together with regulated Arkansas River water, provides supplemental irrigation and M&I water supplies, and produces hydroelectric power. Flood control, fish and wildlife enhancement, and recreation are other important purposes of Fry-Ark. The only generating facility in Fry-Ark is the Mt. Elbert Pumped-Storage powerplant on the Eastern Slope.

    Power Repayment Study—Firm Electric Service Rate

    WAPA prepares PRSs each FY to determine if revenues will be sufficient to repay, within the required time, all costs assigned to the LAP. Repayment criteria are based on WAPA's applicable laws and legislation, as well as policies including DOE Order RA 6120.2. To meet the Cost Recovery Criteria outlined in DOE Order RA 6120.2, revised PRSs and rate adjustments have been developed to demonstrate sufficient revenues will be collected under the Provisional Formula Rates to meet future obligations. The revenue requirement and composite rate for LAP firm electric service are being reduced, as indicated in Table 1:

    Table 1—Comparison of Revenue Requirements and Composite Rates Firm Electric Service Existing
  • requirements
  • (January 1, 2017)
  • Provisional
  • requirements
  • (January 1, 2018)
  • Percent Change
    LAP Revenue Requirement (million $) $74.5 $64.1 −14% LAP Composite Rate (mills/kWh) 36.56 31.44 −14%

    Under the existing rate methodology, rates for LAP firm electric service are designed to recover an annual revenue requirement that includes power investment repayment, aid to irrigation repayment, interest, purchase power, O&M, and other expenses within the allowable period. The annual revenue requirement continues to be allocated equally between capacity and energy.

    Existing and Provisional Formula Rates

    The existing Rate Schedule L-F10 and provisional Rate Schedule L-F11 continue to be formula-based, with Base and Drought Adder components, and provide for an annual incremental upward adjustment to the Drought Adder up to 2 mills/kWh. An incremental increase to the Drought Adder component greater than 2 mills/kWh, requires a public process. The Drought Adder may be adjusted downward pursuant to the formula, by using the approved annual Drought Adder adjustment process. A comparison of the existing and Provisional Formula Rates for LAP firm electric service is listed in Table 2:

    Table 2—Comparison of Existing and Provisional Formula Rates Firm Electric Service Existing Charges
  • Under Rate
  • Schedule L-F10
  • With Modified
  • Drought Adder As
  • of January 1, 2017
  • Provisional
  • Charges Under
  • Rate Schedule
  • L-F11 As of
  • January 1, 2018
  • Percent Change
    Firm Energy Rate (mills/kWh) 18.28 15.72 −14% Firm Capacity Rate ($/kWmonth) $4.79 $4.12 −14%

    Under Rate Schedule L-M2, the Provisional Formula Rate will consist of a charge for products listed in the rate schedule that will be determined at the time of the sale based on market rates, plus administrative costs.

    Certification of Rates

    WAPA's Administrator certified that the Provisional Formula Rates for LAP firm electric service under Rate Schedule L-F11 and sale of surplus products under Rate Schedule L-M2 are the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. The Provisional Formula Rates were developed following administrative policies and applicable laws.

    LAP Firm Electric Service Rate Discussion

    According to Reclamation Law, WAPA is required to establish power rates sufficient to recover O&M, purchased power and interest expenses, and repay power investment and irrigation aid.

    The Criteria, published in the Federal Register on January 31, 1986 (51 FR 4012), operationally and contractually integrated the resources of the P-SMBP—WD and Fry-Ark (thereafter referred to as LAP). A blended rate was established for the sale of LAP firm electric service.

    P-SMBP—WD

    The P-SMBP—WD portion of the revenue requirement was developed from the revenue requirement calculated in the P-SMBP Ratesetting PRS. The P-SMBP—WD revenue requirement decreased approximately 14 percent from the previous revenue requirement primarily as a result of the Drought Adder component being reduced to zero, as the P-SMBP drought-related debts are projected to be fully repaid in 2018. The Base component costs for the P-SMBP—WD have increased primarily due to inflationary annual and capital cost increases associated with incorporating three new out-year projections into the 5-year cost evaluation period into the P-SMBP Ratesetting PRS. The revenue requirements for P-SMBP—WD are as follows:

    Table 3—Summary of P-SMBP—WD Revenue Requirements ($000) Current Revenue Requirement (Jan 2017): (29.80 mills/kWh × 1,988,000,000 kWh) $59,242 Provisional Decrease:  Base: 2.41 mills/kWh × 1,988,000,000 kWh 5,129  Drought Adder: −6.66 mills/kWh × 1,988,000,000 kWh −13,578 −8,449 Provisional Revenue Requirement (29.80 − 4.25 = 25.55 mills/kWh × 1,988,000,000 kWh) 50,793 Fry-Ark

    The Fry-Ark portion of the revenue requirement was developed from the revenue requirement calculated in the Fry-Ark Ratesetting PRS. The Fry-Ark revenue requirement decreased approximately 13 percent due to the Base component costs decreasing, even though the three new out-year projections for annual expenses and capital costs within the 5-year cost evaluation period include inflation. This decrease is caused by the annual expense projections in the current Fry-Ark Ratesetting PRS being an average of $0.3 million per year lower than the annual expense projections in the previous Fry-Ark Ratesetting PRS. In addition to lower annual expenses, ancillary service revenue projections have increased an average of $1.1 million per year over the previous projections; resulting in a net revenue increase of approximately $1.4 million per year. This net revenue helps offset the revenue requirement for firm electric service. The revenue requirements for Fry-Ark are as follows:

    Table 4—Summary of Fry-Ark Revenue Requirements ($000) Current Revenue Requirement (Jan 2017) $15,328 Provisional Decrease: Base −1,978 Drought Adder 0 −1,978 Provisional Revenue Requirement 13,350

    The net effect of the P-SMBP—WD and Fry-Ark adjustments to the Drought Adder and Base components results in an overall decrease to the LAP revenue requirement. The following Table 5 compares LAP existing revenue requirements to the proposed revenue requirements:

    Table 5—Summary of LAP Revenue Requirements ($000) Existing
  • (January 2017)
  • Provisional
  • (January 2018)
  • P-SMBP—WD $59,242 $50,793 Fry-Ark 15,328 13,350 Total LAP 74,571 64,144

    As a part of the current and provisional rate schedules, WAPA provides for a formula-based adjustment of the Drought Adder component of up to 2 mills/kWh. The 2 mills/kWh cap places a limit on the amount the Drought Adder component can be adjusted relative to associated drought costs to recover costs attributable to the Drought Adder formula rate for any one-year cycle. Continuing to identify the firm electric service revenue requirement using Base and Drought Adder components will assist WAPA in the presentation of future impacts of droughts, demonstrate repayment of drought-related costs in the PRSs, and allow WAPA to be more responsive to changes caused by drought-related expenses. WAPA will continue to charge and bill its Preference Customers firm electric service rates for energy and capacity, which are the sum of the Base and Drought Adder components.

    Under Rate Schedule L-F11, WAPA will continue to identify its firm electric service revenue requirement using Base and Drought Adder components. The Base component is a fixed revenue requirement for each project that includes annual O&M expenses, investment repayment and associated interest, normal timing power purchases, and transmission costs. Normal timing power purchases are purchases due to operational constraints (e.g., management of endangered species habitat, water quality, navigation, control area purposes, etc.) and are not associated with drought. WAPA cannot adjust the Base component without a public process.

    The Drought Adder component is a formula-based revenue requirement that includes costs attributable to the drought conditions in the Regions. The Drought Adder component includes costs associated with future Non-timing Power Purchases to meet firm electric service contractual obligations not covered with available system generation due to a drought, previously incurred deficits due to purchased power debt that resulted from Non-timing Power Purchases made during a drought, and the interest associated with drought debt. The Drought Adder component is designed to repay the drought debt within 10 years from the time the debt was incurred, using balloon-payment methodology. For example, the drought debt incurred in FY 2009 will be repaid by FY 2019.

    The annual revenue requirement calculation will continue to be summarized by the following formula: Annual Revenue Requirement = Base Revenue Requirement + Drought Adder Revenue Requirement. Under this Provisional Rate, the LAP annual revenue requirement equals $64.1 million and is comprised of a Base revenue requirement of $64.1 million plus a Drought Adder revenue requirement of $0. A comparison of the existing and provisional charge components is listed in Table 6:

    Table 6—Summary of LAP Charge Components Existing Charges Under Rate Schedule L-F10 with Modified Drought Adder As of January 1, 2017 Base Component Drought Adder Component Total Charge Provisional Charges Under Rate Schedule L-F11 As of January 1, 2018 Base
  • Component
  • Drought Adder Component Total Charge Percent Change
    Firm Capacity
  •  (/kWmonth)
  • $3.92 $0.87 $4.79 $4.12 $0 $4.12 −14
    Firm Energy (mills/kWh) 14.95 3.33 18.28 15.72 0 15.72 −14

    WAPA reviews its firm electric service rates annually. WAPA will review the Base and Drought Adder components after the annual PRSs are complete, generally in the first quarter of the calendar year. If an adjustment to the Base component is necessary, or if an incremental upward adjustment to the Drought Adder component greater than the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to the PRS Composite Rate is necessary, WAPA will initiate a public process pursuant to 10 CFR part 903 prior to making an adjustment.

    In accordance with the approved annual Drought Adder adjustment process, WAPA will review the Drought Adder component annually in early summer to determine if drought costs differ from those projected in the PRSs. In October, WAPA will determine if a change to the Drought Adder component is necessary, either incremental or decremental. Any adjustments to the Drought Adder component, up to 2 mills/kWh, will be implemented in the following January billing cycle. Although decremental adjustments to the Drought Adder component will occur as drought costs are repaid, the adjustments cannot result in a negative Drought Adder component. Implementing the Drought Adder component adjustment on January 1 of each year will help keep the drought deficits from escalating as quickly, will lower the interest expense due to drought deficits, will demonstrate responsible deficit management, and will provide prompt drought deficit repayments.

    Statement of Revenue and Related Expenses

    The following Table 7 provides a summary of projected revenue and expense data for the Fry-Ark firm electric service revenue requirement through the 5-year provisional rate approval period:

    Table 7—Fry-Ark Comparison of 5-Year Rate Period (FY 2018-2022) Total Revenues and Expenses Existing Rate
  • ($000)
  • Provisional Rate
  • ($000)
  • Difference
  • ($000)
  • Total Revenues 1 $89,012 $84,359 $−4,653 Revenue Distribution: Expenses: O&M 32,322 31,334 −988 Purchase Power 691 724 33 Transmission 1 12,663 12,248 −415 Interest 16,080 14,779 −1,301 Total Expenses 61,756 59,085 −2,671 Principal Payments: Capitalized Expenses (deficits) 0 0 0 Original Project and Additions 21,757 14,893 −6,864 Replacements 5,499 10,381 4,882 Total Principal Payments 2 27,256 25,274 −1,982 Total Revenue Distribution 89,012 84,359 −4,653 1 Excludes $7,033M of pass-through transmission revenue and expense projections related to network service contract No. 13-RMR-2368 with Public Service Company of Colorado. 2 The difference in principal payments is due to changes between the FY15 and FY18 work plans, as well as the decrease in revenue being available for repayment during the 5-year period due to the revenue requirement decrease.

    The summary of P-SMBP—WD projected revenues and expenses for the 5-year provisional rate approval period is included in the P-SMBP Statement of Revenue and Related Expenses that is part of Rate Order No. WAPA-180.

    Sale of Surplus Products Discussion

    The existing Rate Schedule L-M1 is formula-based, providing for LAP Marketing to sell LAP surplus energy and capacity products; currently reserves, regulation, and frequency response. If LAP surplus products are available, the charge will be determined at the time of the sale based on market rates, plus administrative costs. The customer will be responsible for acquiring transmission service necessary to deliver the product(s), for which a separate charge may be incurred. Rate Schedule L-M1 is being superseded by Rate Schedule L-M2. Rate Schedule L-M2 will include “energy” as a fourth surplus product offered under this rate schedule.

    Basis for Rate Development

    WAPA is lowering the overall charges for firm electric service by 14 percent, by reducing the Drought Adder component to zero and increasing the Base component to reflect present costs. The Provisional Formula Rates under Rate Schedule L-F11 will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expenses, and repay investments and irrigation aid within the allowable periods. In addition, WAPA is modifying language in the Sale of Surplus Products rate schedule to include “energy” as a fourth surplus product offered under this rate schedule. This change will be included in a new Rate Schedule L-M2.

    Comments

    WAPA received two oral comments during the public consultation and comment period. The comments expressed have been paraphrased, where appropriate, without compromising the meaning of the comments.

    A. Comment: Both customer representatives supported the rate adjustment as proposed, and emphasized the need for continued cost control regarding the Base component.

    Response: WAPA is committed to keeping the power rates at the lowest possible rates while maintaining sound business principles.

    Availability of Information

    Information about this rate adjustment, including the customer rate brochure, PRSs, comments, letters, memorandums, and other supporting materials that were used to develop the Provisional Formula Rates, is available for inspection and copying at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado. Many of these documents are also available on WAPA's Web site at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/RM/rates/Pages/2018-Rate-Adjustment-Firm-Power.aspx.

    RATEMAKING PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS Environmental Compliance

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021), WAPA has determined that this action is categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. A copy of the categorical exclusion determination is available on WAPA's Web site at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/RM/environment/Pages/CX2017.aspx. Look for file entitled “LAP WAPA-179 FES Rate Adjustment.”

    Determination Under Executive Order 12866

    WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.

    Submission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

    The Provisional Formula Rates herein confirmed, approved, and placed into effect on an interim basis, together with supporting documents, will be submitted to FERC for confirmation and final approval.

    ORDER

    In view of the foregoing, and under the authority delegated to me, I confirm and approve on an interim basis, effective the first full billing period on or after January 1, 2018, Rate Schedules L-F11 and L-M2 for the Loveland Area Projects of the Western Area Power Administration. These rate schedules shall remain in effect on an interim basis, pending the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's confirmation and approval of them, or substitute rates, on a final basis through December 31, 2022, or until superseded.

    Dated: November 30, 2017

    Dan Brouillette Deputy Secretary of Energy
    Rate Schedule L-F11 (Supersedes Rate Schedule L-F10) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION Loveland Area Projects FIRM ELECTRIC SERVICE (Approved Under Rate Order No. WAPA-179) Effective

    The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and extending through December 31, 2022, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.

    Available

    Within the marketing area served by the Loveland Area Projects; parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming.

    Applicable

    To the firm electric service delivered at specific point(s) of delivery, as established by contract.

    Character

    Alternating current, 60 hertz, three phase, delivered and metered at the voltages and points established by contract.

    Formula Rate and Charge Components Rate = Base component + Drought Adder component

    Monthly Charge as of January 1, 2018, under the Rate:

    CAPACITY CHARGE:

    $4.12 per kilowatt per month (kWmonth) of billing capacity.

    ENERGY CHARGE:

    15.72 mills per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of monthly entitlement.

    BILLING CAPACITY:

    Unless otherwise specified by contract, the billing capacity will be the seasonal contract rate of delivery.

    Base Component: A fixed revenue requirement that includes operation and maintenance expense, investments and replacements, interest on investments and replacements, normal timing power purchases (purchases due to operational constraints, not associated with drought), and transmission costs. Any proposed change to the Base component will require a public process.

    The Base revenue requirement is $64.1 million and the charges under the formulas are:

    EN07DE17.003

    Drought Adder Component: A formula-based revenue requirement that includes future purchase power above timing purchases, previous purchase power drought deficits, and interest on the purchase power drought deficits. As of January 1, 2018, the Drought Adder component revenue requirement is $0.0 million and the charges under the formulas are:

    EN07DE17.004

    Annual Drought Adder Adjustment Process: The Drought Adder component may be adjusted annually using the above formulas for any costs attributed to drought of less than or equal to the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to the Power Repayment Study (PRS) composite rate. Any planned incremental adjustment to the Drought Adder component greater than the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to the PRS composite rate will require a public process.

    The annual review process is initiated in early summer when WAPA reviews the Drought Adder component and provides notice of any estimated change to the Drought Adder component charge under the formula. In October, WAPA will make a final determination of any change to the Drought Adder component charge, either incremental or decremental. If a Drought Adder component change is required, a modified Drought Adder revenue requirement and the associated charges will become effective the following January 1 and will be identified in a Drought Adder modification update. WAPA will inform customers of updates by letter and post updates to WAPA's external website.

    Adjustments

    For Transformer Losses: If delivery is made at transmission voltage but metered on the low-voltage side of the substation, the meter readings will be increased to compensate for transformer losses as provided for in the contract.

    For Power Factor: None. The customer will be required to maintain a power factor at all points of measurement between 95-percent lagging and 95-percent leading.

    Rate Schedule L-M2 (Supersedes Rate Schedule L-M1) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION Loveland Area Projects SALE OF SURPLUS PRODUCTS (Approved Under Rate Order No. WAPA-179) Effective

    The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and extending through December 31, 2022, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.

    Applicable

    This rate schedule applies to Loveland Area Projects (LAP) Marketing and is applicable to the sale of the following LAP surplus energy and capacity products: energy, frequency response, regulation, and reserves. If any of the above LAP surplus products are available, LAP can make the product(s) available for sale, providing entities enter into separate agreement(s) with LAP Marketing which will specify the terms of sale(s).

    Formula Rate

    The charge for each product will be determined at the time of the sale based on market rates, plus administrative costs. The customer will be responsible for acquiring transmission service necessary to deliver the product(s), for which a separate charge may be incurred.

    [FR Doc. 2017-26375 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division—Rate Order No. WAPA-180 AGENCY:

    Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of order concerning firm power, firm peaking power, and sale of surplus product formula rates.

    SUMMARY:

    The Deputy Secretary of Energy confirmed and approved Rate Order No. WAPA-180 and Rate Schedules P-SED-F13, P-SED-FP13, and P-SED-M1 for firm power service, firm peaking power service, and a new formula rate for sale of surplus products for the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division (P-SMBP—ED) into effect on an interim basis (Provisional Formula Rates).

    DATES:

    The Rate Schedules P-SED-F13, P-SED-FP13, and P-SED-M1 are effective on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and will remain in effect through December 31, 2022, pending confirmation and approval by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on a final basis or until superseded.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jody S. Sundsted, Acting Regional Manager, Upper Great Plains Region, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101-1266, telephone (406) 255-2800, or Ms. Linda Cady-Hoffman, Rates Manager, Upper Great Plains Region, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101-1266, telephone (406) 255-2920, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Firm Electric Service

    On December 2, 2014, the Deputy Secretary of Energy approved, on an interim basis, Rate Schedules P-SED-F12 and P-SED-FP12 under Rate Order No. WAPA-166 for the 5-year period beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2019 (79 FR 72670-72677 (Dec. 8, 2014)).1 These rate schedules are formula-based, providing for adjustments to the Drought Adder component.2 On January 1, 2017, the Drought Adder component of the P-SMBP—ED effective rate schedule was adjusted downward, recognizing repayment of drought costs included in the Drought Adder component of the approved formula rates. Under Rate Schedule P-SED-F12 with adjusted Drought Adder component as of January 1, 2017, the firm capacity charge is $6.50/kWmonth and the firm energy charge is 16.18 mills/kWh. Under Rate Schedule P-SED-FP12, the firm peaking capacity charge is $5.85/kWmonth. Firm peaking energy is normally returned. A firm peaking energy charge of 16.18 mills/kWh will be assessed in the event energy is not returned.

    1 FERC confirmed and approved Rate Order WAPA-166 on a final basis on March 18, 2015, in Docket No. EF15-3-000. See United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration (Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division), 150 FERC ¶ 62,170.

    2 The Drought Adder component is a formula-based revenue requirement that includes future purchase power above timing purchases, previous purchase power drought deficits, and interest on the purchase power drought deficits. See 72 FR 64067 (November 14, 2007). The Drought Adder was added as a component to the energy and capacity rates in Rate Order No. WAPA-135, which was approved by the Deputy Secretary on an interim basis on November 14, 2007 (72 FR 64067). FERC confirmed and approved Rate Order WAPA-135 on a final basis on April 14, 2008, in Docket No. EF08-5031. See United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration (Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program-Eastern Division), 123 FERC ¶ 62,048. WAPA reviews the Drought Adder component each September to determine if drought costs differ from those projected in the Power Repayment Study and whether an adjustment to the Drought Adder component is necessary. See 72 FR 64071. The Drought Adder component may be adjusted downward using the approved annual Drought Adder adjustment process, whereas an incremental upward adjustment to the Drought Adder component greater than the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh requires a public rate process. See 72 FR 64071.

    Effective January 1, 2018, WAPA is adjusting the overall composite rate of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, which is reflected in an adjustment to the formula-based charge components of the firm power rate schedules. The Drought Adder component of the firm power rate schedules will go down to zero and the Base component will be adjusted upward to reflect present costs attributed to the charge components. WAPA's Upper Great Plains Region (UGP) is removing the 5 percent voltage discount in the existing P-SMBP—ED firm power rate schedule P-SED-F12 and removing the voltage discount from the firm power revenue requirement. The total annual revenue requirement for P-SMBP—ED is $230.1 million for firm power service and firm peaking power service. Under Rate Schedule P-SED-F13, the firm capacity charge is $5.25/kWmonth and the firm energy charge is 13.27 mills/kWh. Under Rate Schedule P-SED-FP13, the firm peaking capacity charge is $4.75/kWmonth. Firm Peaking Energy is normally returned. A Firm Peaking Energy charge of 13.27 mills/kWh will be assessed in the event energy is not returned.

    Sale of Surplus Products

    In addition to the firm power and firm peaking power rate schedules, WAPA is implementing a new formula-based rate schedule, P-SED-M1, applicable to the sale of surplus energy and capacity products; energy, reserves, regulation, and frequency response. If P-SMBP—ED surplus products are available, the charge for each product will be determined based on market rates plus administrative costs. The customer will be responsible for acquiring transmission service necessary to deliver the product(s), for which a separate charge may be incurred.

    Legal Authority

    By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to the Administrator of WAPA; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand or to disapprove such rates to FERC. Federal rules (10 CFR part 903) govern DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments.

    Under Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00B and 00-001.00F and in compliance with 10 CFR part 903 and 18 CFR part 300, I hereby confirm, approve, and place Rate Order No. WAPA-180, which provides the formula rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power, firm peaking power, and sale of surplus products, into effect on an interim basis. The new Rate Schedules P-SED-F13, P-SED-FP13, and P-SED-M1 will be submitted to FERC for confirmation and approval on a final basis.

    Dated: November 30, 2017. Dan Brouillette, Deputy Secretary of Energy. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPUTY SECRETARY

    In the matter of: Western Area Power Administration

    Rate Adjustment for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division) Rate Order No. WAPA-180
    ORDER CONFIRMING, APPROVING, AND PLACING THE PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM—EASTERN DIVISION FIRM POWER SERVICE, FIRM PEAKING POWER SERVICE AND SALE OF SURPLUS PRODUCT FORMULA RATES INTO EFFECT ON AN INTERIM BASIS

    The firm power, firm peaking power, and sale of surplus product rates for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division (P-SMBP—ED) set forth in this order are established in accordance with section 302 of the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152). This Act transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy the power marketing functions of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)) and section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and other acts that specifically apply to the projects involved.

    By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) the authority to develop power and transmission rates to the Administrator of Western Area Power Administration (WAPA); (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Federal rules (10 CFR part 903) govern DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments.

    Acronyms, Terms and Definitions

    As used in this Rate Order, the following acronyms, terms and definitions apply:

    Base: A fixed revenue requirement that includes O&M expense, investments and replacements, interest on investments and replacements, normal timing power purchase (purchases due to operational constraints, not associated with drought), and transmission costs.

    Capacity: The electric capability of a generator, transformer, transmission circuit, or other equipment. It is expressed in kilowatts.

    Capacity Rate: The rate which sets forth the charges for capacity. It is expressed in dollars per kilowatt-month and applied to each kilowatt of the Contract Rate of Delivery (CROD).

    Composite Rate: The Power Repayment Study (PRS) rate for commercial firm power, which is the total annual revenue requirement for capacity and energy divided by the total annual energy sales. It is expressed in mills per kilowatt-hour and used only for comparison purposes.

    Customer: An entity with a contract that is receiving firm electric service from WAPA.

    Deficits: Deferred or unrecovered annual and/or interest expenses.

    DOE Order RA 6120.2: An order outlining power marketing administration financial reporting and rate-making procedures.

    Drought Adder: A formula-based revenue requirement that includes future purchase power above timing purchases, previous purchase power drought deficits, and interest on the purchase power drought deficits.

    Energy: Measured in terms of the work it is capable of doing over a period of time. Electric energy is expressed in kilowatt-hours.

    Energy Charge: The charge under the rate schedule for energy. It is expressed in mills per kilowatt-hour and applied to each kilowatt-hour delivered to each Customer.

    Firm: A type of product and/or service available at the time requested by a Customer.

    FY: Fiscal year; October 1 to September 30.

    kW: Kilowatt—the electrical unit of capacity that equals 1,000 watts.

    kWh: Kilowatt-hour—the electrical unit of energy that equals 1,000 watts in 1 hour.

    kWmonth: Kilowatt-month the electrical unit of the monthly amount of capacity.

    LAP Loveland Area Projects

    mills/kWh: Mills per kilowatt-hour—the unit of charge for energy (equal to one tenth of a cent or one thousandth of a dollar).

    MW: Megawatt—the electrical unit of capacity that equals 1 million watts or 1,000 kilowatts.

    Non-timing Power Purchases: Power purchases that are not related to operational constraints such as management of endangered species, species habitat, water quality, navigation, control area purposes, etc.

    O&M Operation and Maintenance.

    P-SMBP: The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program.

    P-SMBP—ED: Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division.

    P-SMBP—WD: Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Western Division.

    Power: Capacity and energy.

    Power Factor: The ratio of real to apparent power at any given point and time in an electrical circuit. Generally, it is expressed as a percentage.

    Preference: The provisions of Reclamation Law that require WAPA to first make Federal power available to certain entities. For example, section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)) states that preference in the sale of Federal power shall be given to municipalities and other public corporations or agencies and also to cooperatives and other nonprofit organizations financed in whole or in part by loans made under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

    Provisional Formula Rate: A formula rate confirmed, approved, and placed into effect on an interim basis by the Deputy Secretary of Energy.

    Ratesetting PRS: The Power Repayment Study used for the rate adjustment period.

    Revenue Requirement: The revenue required by PRS to recover annual expenses (such as O&M, purchase power, transmission service expenses, interest, and deferred expenses) and repay Federal investments and other assigned costs.

    Effective Date

    The Provisional Formula Rate Schedules P-SED-F13, P-SED-FP13, and P-SED-M1 will take effect on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and will remain in effect through December 31, 2022, pending approval by FERC on a final basis or until superseded.

    Public Notice and Comment

    WAPA-UGP followed the Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions, 10 CFR part 903, in developing these rates and schedules. The steps WAPA took to involve interested parties in the rate process were:

    1. A Federal Register Notice, published on July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30858) (Proposal FRN), announced the proposed rates for P-SMBP—ED and began the 90-day public consultation and comment period.

    2. On July 5, 2017, WAPA-UGP mailed letters to all P-SMBP—ED Preference Customers and interested parties transmitting the FRN published on July 3, 2017.

    3. On August 22, 2017, at 9 a.m. (MDT), WAPA held a public information forum at the Denver Embassy Suites, 7000 Yampa Street, Denver, Colorado. WAPA provided updates to the proposed firm power rates and sale of surplus products for both P-SMBP—ED and Loveland Area Projects (LAP). WAPA also answered questions and gave notice that more information was available in the customer rate brochure.

    4. On August 22, 2017, at 11 a.m. (MDT), following the public information forum, at the same location, a public comment forum was held, to provide an opportunity for customers and other interested parties to comment for the record. No oral or written comments were received at this forum.

    5. On August 23, 2017, at 9 a.m. (CDT), WAPA held a public information forum at the Holiday Inn, 100 West 8th Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. WAPA provided updates to the proposed firm power rates and sale of surplus products for both the P-SMBP—ED and LAP. WAPA also answered questions and gave notice that more information was available in the customer rate brochure.

    6. On August 23, 2017, at 11 a.m. (CDT), following the public information forum, and at the same location, a public comment forum was held. The comment forum gave the public an opportunity to comment for the record. Two oral comments were received at this forum.

    7. WAPA provided a Web site that contains all dates, customer letters, presentations, FRNs, customer rate brochure, and other information about this rate process. The Web site is located at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/UGP/rates/Pages/2018-firm-rate-adjustment.aspx.

    8. During the 90-day consultation and comment period, which ended October 2, 2017, WAPA received two oral comments (at the August 23 public comment forum) and two comment letters. The comments and WAPA's responses are addressed below. All comments have been considered in the preparation of this Rate Order.

    Two representatives of the following organizations made oral comments Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, Colorado Missouri River Energy Services, South Dakota Written comments were received from the following interested parties Marshall Municipal Utilities, Minnesota Missouri River Energy Services, South Dakota Project Description

    The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (P-SMBP), originally the Missouri River Basin Project, was authorized by Congress in section 9 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 of December 22, 1944 (Pub. L. 534, 58 Stat. 887, 891). This multipurpose program provides flood control, irrigation, navigation, recreation, preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife, and power generation. Multipurpose projects have been developed on the Missouri River and its tributaries in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

    In addition to the multipurpose water projects authorized by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, certain other existing projects have been integrated with the P-SMBP for power marketing, operation, and repayment purposes. The Colorado-Big Thompson, Kendrick, Riverton, and Shoshone Projects were combined with the P-SMBP in 1954, followed by the North Platte Project in 1959. These projects were referred to as the “Integrated Projects” of the P-SMBP.

    The Flood Control Act of 1944 also authorized the inclusion of the Fort Peck Project with the P-SMBP for operation and repayment purposes. The Riverton Project was reauthorized as a unit of P-SMBP in 1970.

    The P-SMBP power is marketed by two Regions. The UGP Region, with a regional office in Billings, Montana, markets the Eastern Division (P-SMBP—ED) power to approximately 340 customers. The Rocky Mountain Region (RMR), with a regional office in Loveland, Colorado, markets the Western Division (P-SMBP—WD) power through LAP to approximately 75 customers.

    The adjustment to the LAP rate is a separate formal rate process, which is documented in Rate Order No. WAPA-179. Rate Order No. WAPA-179 is also scheduled to go into effect on the first day of the first full billing period on or after January 1, 2018. The P-SMBP—WD revenue requirement is incorporated into the LAP rate, along with the revenue requirement for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

    Power Repayment Study—Firm Power Rate

    WAPA prepares a PRS each FY to determine if revenues will be sufficient to repay, within the required time, all costs assigned to the P-SMBP. Repayment criteria is based on WAPA's applicable laws and legislation, as well as policies including DOE Order RA 6120.2. To meet the Cost Recovery Criteria outlined in DOE Order RA 6120.2, a revised study and rate adjustment has been developed to demonstrate that sufficient revenues will be collected under Provisional Formula Rates to meet future obligations.

    With the removal of the voltage discount taken into account, the total annual revenue requirement for P-SMBP—ED is $230.1 million for firm power service and firm peaking power service. The revenue requirement and composite rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power and firm peaking power are being reduced, as indicated in Table 1:

    Table 1—Comparison of Revenue Requirements and Composite Rates Existing
  • requirements
  • (January 1,
  • 2017)
  • Provisional
  • requirements
  • (January 1,
  • 2018)
  • Percent
  • change
  • P-SMBP—ED Revenue Requirement (millions $) $282.7 $230.1 1 −19% P-SMBP—ED Composite Rate (mills/kWh) 28.25 24.00 −15 1 Voltage discount removed.

    Under the existing rate methodology, rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power service and firm peaking power service are designed to recover an annual revenue requirement that includes power investment repayment, aid to irrigation repayment, interest expense, purchase power, O&M, and other expenses within the allowable period. The annual revenue requirement continues to be allocated equally between capacity and energy.

    Existing and Provisional Formula Rates

    The existing Rate Schedules P-SED-P12 and P-SED-FP12 and provisional Rate Schedules P-SED-P13 and P-SED-FP13 continue to be formula-based, with Base and Drought Adder components, and provide for an incremental upward adjustment to the Drought Adder component up to 2 mills/kwh. An incremental increase to the Drought Adder greater than 2 mills/kWh requires a public process. The Drought Adder may be adjusted downward pursuant to the formula, by using the approved annual Drought Adder adjustment process. A comparison of the existing and Provisional Formula Rates for P-SMBP—ED firm electric service is listed in Table 2:

    Table 2—Comparison of Existing and Provisional Formula Rates Firm power service Existing
  • charges
  • under
  • P-SED-F12/
  • P-SED-FP12
  • with modified
  • drought adder
  • as of
  • January 1, 2017
  • Provisional
  • charges under
  • P-SED-F13/
  • P-SED-FP13
  • as of
  • January 1, 2018
  • Percent change
    Firm Capacity ($/kW month) $6.50 $5.25 −19 Firm Energy (mills/kWh) 16.18 13.27 −18 Firm Peaking Capacity ($/kW month) $5.85 $4.75 −19 Firm Peaking Energy (mills/kWh) 1 16.18 13.27 −18 1 Firm Peaking Energy is normally returned. This charge will be assessed in the event Firm Peaking Energy is not returned.

    Under the new formula-based Rate Schedule P-SED-M1, the Provisional Formula Rate will consist of a charge for products listed in the rate schedule that will be determined at the time of the sale based on market rates, plus administrative costs.

    Certification of Rates

    WAPA's Administrator certified that the Provisional Formula Rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power, firm peaking power, and sale of surplus product rates under Rate Schedules P-SED-F13, P-SED-FP13, and P-SED-M1 are at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. The Provisional Formula Rates were developed following administrative policies and applicable laws.

    P-SMBP—ED Firm Power Rate Discussion

    According to Reclamation Law, WAPA is required to establish power rates sufficient to recover O&M, purchased power and interest expenses, and repay power investment and irrigation aid. The P-SMBP—ED firm power and firm peaking power Base and Drought Adder components are updated to represent present costs. As a part of the existing and provisional rate schedules, WAPA provides for a formula-based adjustment of the Drought Adder component of up to 2 mills/kWh. The 2 mills/kWh cap places a limit on the amount the Drought Adder component can be adjusted relative to associated drought costs to recover costs attributable to the Drought Adder formula rate for any one-year cycle. Continuing to identify the firm power service revenue requirement using Base and Drought Adder components will assist WAPA in the presentation of future impacts of droughts, demonstrate repayment of drought-related costs in the PRS, and allow WAPA to be more responsive to changes caused by drought-related expenses. WAPA will continue to charge and bill its Preference Customers firm power service and firm peaking power service rates for energy and capacity, which are the sum of the Base and Drought Adder components.

    Under Rate Schedules P-SED-F13 and P-SED-FP13, WAPA will continue to identify its firm power revenue requirement using Base and Drought Adder components. The Base component is a fixed revenue requirement that includes annual O&M expenses, investment repayment and associated interest, normal timing power purchases, and transmission costs. Normal timing power purchases are due to operational constraints (e.g., management of endangered species habitat, water quality, navigation, etc.) and are not associated with drought. WAPA cannot adjust the Base component without a public process.

    The Drought Adder component is a formula-based revenue requirement that includes costs attributable to drought conditions within P-SMBP. The Drought Adder component includes costs associated with future Non-timing Power Purchases to meet firm power contractual obligations not covered with available system generation due to a drought, previously incurred deficits due to purchased power debt that resulted from Non-timing Power Purchases made during a drought, and the interest associated with drought debt. The Drought Adder component is designed to repay WAPA's drought debt within 10 years from the time the debt was incurred, using balloon-payment methodology. For example, the drought debt incurred by WAPA in FY 2009 is required to be repaid by FY 2019.

    The annual revenue requirement calculation will continue to be summarized by the following formula: Annual Revenue Requirement = Base Revenue Requirement + Drought Adder Revenue Requirement. Both the Base and Drought Adder components recover portions of the firm power revenue requirement and firm peaking power revenue necessary to equal the P-SMBP—ED revenue requirement. Under this Provisional Rate, the P-SMBP—ED annual revenue requirement equals $230.1 million and is comprised of a Base revenue requirement of $230.1 million plus a Drought Adder revenue requirement of $0. A comparison of the existing and provisional charge components is listed in Table 3.

    Table 3—Summary of P-SMBP—ED Charge Components Existing charges under rate schedules
  • P-SED-F12 and P-SED-FP12 with
  • modified drought adder as of
  • January 1, 2017
  • Base
  • component
  • Drought Adder
  • component
  • Total charge Provisional charges under rate
  • schedules P-SED-F13 and P-SED-FP13
  • as of January 1, 2018
  • Base
  • component
  • Drought Adder
  • component
  • Total charge Change (%)
    Firm Capacity
  •  (/kWmonth)
  • $4.90 $1.60 $6.50 $5.25 $0.00 $5.25 −19%
    Firm Energy (mills/kWh) 12.33 3.85 16.18 13.27 0.00 13.27 −18% Firm Peaking Capacity ($/kWmonth) $4.45 $1.40 $5.85 $4.75 $0.00 $4.75 −19% Firm Peaking Energy (mills/kWh) 1 12.33 3.85 16.18 13.27 0.00 13.27 −18% 1 Firm Peaking Energy is normally returned. This charge will be assessed in the event Firm Peaking Energy is not returned.

    WAPA reviews its firm power service rates annually. WAPA will review the Base and Drought Adder components after the annual PRS is completed, generally in the first quarter of the calendar year. If an adjustment to the Base component is necessary or if an incremental upward adjustment to the Drought Adder component greater than the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to the PRS Composite Rate is necessary, WAPA will initiate a public process following 10 CFR part 903 before making an adjustment.

    In accordance with the approved Drought Adder adjustment process, WAPA will review the Drought Adder component annually in early summer to determine if drought costs differ from those projected in the PRS. In October, WAPA will determine if a change to the Drought Adder component is necessary, either incremental or decremental. Adjustment to the Drought Adder component, up to 2 mills/kWh, will be implemented in the following January billing cycle. Although decremental adjustments to the Drought Adder component will occur as drought costs are repaid, the adjustments cannot result in a negative Drought Adder component. Implementing the Drought Adder component adjustment on January 1 of each year will help keep the drought deficits from escalating as quickly, will lower the interest expense due to drought deficits, will demonstrate responsible deficit management, and will provide prompt drought deficit repayments.

    Statement of Revenue and Related Expenses

    The following Table 4 provides a summary of projected revenue and expense data for the P-SMBP, including both the Eastern and Western Division's firm electric service revenue requirements, through the 5-year provisional rate approval period. The firm power rates for Eastern and Western Divisions have been developed with the following revenues and expenses for the P-SMBP:

    Table 4—P-SMBP Comparison of 5-Year Rate Period (FY 2018-2022) Total Revenues and Expenses Existing Rate
  • ($000)
  • Provisional Rate
  • ($000)
  • Difference
  • ($000)
  • Total Revenues1 $2,679,973 $2,644,825 ($35,148) Revenue Distribution Expenses: O&M $1,082,969 $1,158,866 $75,897 Purchased Power 164,049 124,796 (39,253) Interest 561,528 560,257 (1,271) Transmission1 64,072 460,982 396,910 Total Expenses $1,872,618 $2,304,901 $432,283 Principal Payments: Capitalized Expenses (Deficits) 2 $345,006 $42,325 ($302,681) Original Project and Additions 2 401,193 179,017 (222,176) Replacements 2 61,156 72,864 11,708 Irrigation Aid 0 45,718 45,718 Total Principal Payments $807,355 $339,924 ($467,431) Total Revenue Distribution $2,679,973 $2,644,825 ($35,148) 1 Transmission increase is a result of accounting treatment of transmission expense and transmission revenue due to WAPA-UPG joining the Southwest Power Pool (SPP). 2 Due to historic drought conditions, revenues generated in the cost evaluation period are applied toward repayment of deferred annual expenses rather than repayment of project additions and replacements. The outstanding deferred of amount $42.3 million is projected to be repaid in 2018, a year ahead of its due date.
    Sale of Surplus Products Discussion

    WAPA is also implementing a new formula rate for the sale of surplus products under Rate Schedule P-SED-M1. This new rate schedule allows for the sale of generation and generation-related products in excess of WAPA's P-SMBP—ED firm power obligations at market rates. P-SED-M1 is a new formula-based rate schedule, applicable to the sale of surplus energy and capacity products. The schedule includes reserves, regulation, frequency response, and energy. If WAPA UGP surplus products are available, the charge is determined based on market rates, plus administrative costs. The customer will be responsible for acquiring transmission service necessary to deliver the product(s) for which a separate charge may be incurred. WAPA is placing Rate Schedule P-SED-M1 into effect for the 5-year period beginning January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022.

    Basis for Rate Development

    WAPA is lowering the overall charges for firm power service and firm peaking power service by 19 percent, by reducing the Drought Adder component to zero, increasing the Base component, and removing the voltage discount. The Provisional Formula Rates under Rate Schedules P-SED-F13 and P-SED-FP13 will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay investments within the allowable periods.

    Comments

    WAPA received two comment letters and two oral comments during the public consultation and comment period. The comments expressed in these letters have been paraphrased, where appropriate, without compromising the meaning of the comments.

    A. Comment: One customer expressed support of the proposed rate adjustment as described in the FRN for Rate Order No. WAPA-180. The customer is aware that WAPA intends to lower the Drought Adder to zero and increase the Base component due to inflationary pressures. The customer also expressed support of removing the voltage discount. The customer commended WAPA on paying off the $843 million in drought debt as a significant achievement. The customer acknowledged much has been learned about the risks of power supply management through drought periods. The customer encouraged WAPA to work towards implementing a purchase power and wheeling strategy for WAPA's unobligated balances to help manage such risks in the future.

    Response: This rate reduction rebalances the Base and Drought Adder components. WAPA has also determined that the voltage discount has served its purpose and now is no longer needed. In its nearly 70 years of application, the original intent of reimbursing customers for relieving the BOR and then WAPA of transmission facility construction costs has been met. The purchase power and wheeling strategy, as well as the use of unobligated balances, are not directly related to this rate action. WAPA will, however, continue to complete an annual Drought Adder review that allows WAPA to be more responsive to rate adjustments driven by drought periods. WAPA is committed to continuing to implement its purchase power and wheeling strategy and use of unobligated balances in an open and transparent manner.

    B. Comment: Multiple customer representatives supported the rate adjustment as proposed, and emphasized the need for continued cost control regarding the Base component.

    Response: WAPA is committed to keeping the power rates at the lowest possible rates while maintaining sound business principles.

    Availability of Information

    Information about this rate adjustment, including the customer rate brochure, PRS, comments, letters, memorandums, and other supporting materials that were used to develop the Provisional Formula Rates, is be available for inspection and copying at the Upper Great Plains Regional Office, located at 2900 4th Avenue North, 6th Floor, Billings, Montana. Many of these documents are also available on WAPA's Web site under the “2018 Firm Rate Adjustment” section located at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/UGP/rates/Pages/2018-firm-rate-adjustment.aspx.

    RATEMAKING PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS Environmental Compliance

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347: the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508): and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021), WAPA has determined this action is categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. A copy of the categorical exclusion determination is available on WAPA's Web site at http://www.wapa.gov/regions/UGP/Environment/Documents/RateOrderWAPA-180.pdf.

    Determination Under Executive Order 12866

    WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.

    Submission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

    The Provisional Formula Rates herein confirmed, approved, and placed into effect on an interim basis, together with supporting documents, will be submitted to FERC for confirmation and final approval.

    ORDER

    In view of the foregoing and under the authority delegated to me, I confirm and approve on an interim basis, effective on the first full billing period on or after January 1, 2018, Rate Schedules P-SED-F13, P-SED-FP13, and P-SED-M1 for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division Project of the Western Area Power Administration. These rate schedules shall remain in effect on an interim basis, pending Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's confirmation and approval of the rate schedules or substitute rates on a final basis through December 31, 2022, or until superseded.

    Dated: November 30, 2017

    Dan Brouillette Deputy Secretary of Energy
    Rate Schedule P-SED-F13 (Supersedes Schedule P-SED-F12) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION UPPER GREAT PLAINS REGION Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division FIRM POWER SERVICE (Approved Under Rate Order No. WAPA-180) Effective

    The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.

    Available

    Within the marketing area served by the Eastern Division of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program; within Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.

    Applicable

    To the power and energy delivered to customers as firm power service.

    Character

    Alternating current, 60 hertz, three phase, delivered and metered at the voltages and points established by contract.

    Formula Rate and Charge Components Rate = Base component + Drought Adder component.

    Monthly Charge as of January 1, 2018, under the Rate:

    CAPACITY CHARGE: $5.25 for each kilowatt per month (kWmo) of billing capacity.

    ENERGY CHARGE: 13.27 mills for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) for all energy delivered as firm power service.

    BILLING CAPACITY: The billing capacity will be as defined by the power sales contract.

    Charge Components

    Base Component: A fixed revenue requirement that includes operation and maintenance expense, investments and replacements, interest on investments and replacements, normal timing purchase power (purchases due to operational constraints, not associated with drought), and transmission costs. Any proposed change to the Base component will require a public process.

    EN07DE17.001

    Drought Adder Component: A formula-based revenue requirement that includes future purchase power expense above timing purchases, previous purchase power drought deficits, and interest on the purchase power drought deficits. The formulas, along with the charges under the formulas as of January 1, 2018, are:

    EN07DE17.002

    Annual Drought Adder Adjustment Process:

    The Drought Adder may be adjusted annually using the above formulas for any costs attributed to drought of less than or equal to the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to the Power Repayment Study (PRS) composite rate. Any planned incremental upward adjustment to the Drought Adder greater than the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to the PRS composite rate will require a public process.

    The annual review process is initiated in early summer when WAPA reviews the Drought Adder component and provides notice of any estimated change to the Drought Adder component charge under the formula. In October, WAPA will make a final determination of any change to the Drought Adder component charge, either incremental or decremental. If a Drought Adder component change is required, a modified Drought Adder revenue requirement and the associated charges will become effective the following January 1 and will be identified in a Drought Adder modification update. WAPA will inform customers of updates by letter and post updates to WAPA's external Web site.

    Adjustments:

    For Billing of Unauthorized Overruns:

    For each billing period in which there is a contract violation involving an unauthorized overrun of the contractual firm power and/or energy obligations, such overrun shall be billed at 10 times the formula rate.

    For Power Factor:

    None. Customers will be required to maintain a power factor at the point of delivery between 95-percent lagging and 95-percent leading.

    Rate Schedule P-SED-FP13 (Supersedes Schedule P-SED-FP12) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION UPPER GREAT PLAINS REGION Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division FIRM PEAKING POWER SERVICE (Approved Under Rate Order No. WAPA-180) Effective:

    The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.

    Available:

    Within the marketing area served by the Eastern Division of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program; within Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.

    Applicable:

    To the power sold to customers as firm peaking power service.

    Character:

    Alternating current, 60 hertz, three phase, delivered and metered at the voltages and points established by contract.

    Formula Rate and Charge Components: Rate = Base component + Drought Adder component

    Monthly Charge as of January 1, 2018, under the Rate:

    CAPACITY CHARGE:

    $4.75 for each kilowatt per month (kWmo) of the effective contract rate of delivery for peaking power or the maximum amount scheduled, whichever is greater.

    ENERGY CHARGE:

    13.27 mills for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) for all energy scheduled for delivery without return.

    Charge Components:

    Base Component: A fixed revenue requirement that includes operation and maintenance expense, investments and replacements, interest on investments and replacements, normal timing purchase power (purchases due to operational constraints, not associated with drought), and transmission costs. Any proposed change to the Base component will require a public process.

    EN07DE17.005

    Drought Adder Component: A formula-based revenue requirement that includes future purchase power above timing purchases, previous purchase power drought deficits, and interest on the purchase power drought deficits. The formulas, along with the charges under the formulas as of January 1, 2018, are:

    EN07DE17.006

    Annual Drought Adder Adjustment Process:

    The Drought Adder may be adjusted annually using the above formulas for any costs attributed to drought of less than or equal to the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to the Power Repayment Study (PRS) composite rate. Any planned incremental upward adjustment to the Drought Adder greater than the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to the PRS composite rate will require a public process.

    The annual review process is initiated in early summer when WAPA reviews the Drought Adder component and provides notice of any estimated change to the Drought Adder component charge under the formula. In October, WAPA will make a final determination of any change to the Drought Adder component charge, either incremental or decremental. If a Drought Adder component change is required, a modified Drought Adder revenue requirement and the associated charges will become effective the following January 1 and will be identified in a Drought Adder modification update. WAPA will inform customers of updates by letter and post updates to WAPA's external Web site.

    BILLING CAPACITY:

    The billing capacity will be the greater of (1) the highest 30-minute integrated capacity measured during the month up to, but not in excess of, the delivery obligation under the power sales contract, or (2) the contract rate of delivery.

    Adjustments:

    Billing for Unauthorized Overruns:

    For each billing period in which there is a contract violation involving an unauthorized overrun of the contractual obligation for peaking capacity and/or energy, such overrun shall be billed at 10 times the above rate.

    Rate Schedule P-SED-M1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION UPPER GREAT PLAINS REGION PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM—EASTERN DIVISION SALE OF SURPLUS PRODUCTS (Approved Under Rate Order No. WAPA-180) Effective:

    The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.

    Applicable:

    This rate schedule applies to Eastern Division of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program marketing and is applicable to the sale of the following P-SMBP—ED surplus energy and capacity products; energy, frequency response, regulation, and reserves. If any P-SMBP—ED surplus energy and capacity products are available, UGP can make the product(s) available for sale, providing entities enter into a separate agreement(s) with UGP Marketing Office which will specify the terms of sale(s).

    Formula Rate:

    The charge for each product is determined at the time of the sale based on market rates, plus administrative costs. The customer will be responsible for acquiring transmission services necessary to deliver the product(s), for which a separate charge may be incurred.

    [FR Doc. 2017-26376 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9970-84-Region 6] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Big River Steel, LLC, Osceola, Arkansas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final action.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated October 31, 2017, denying a petition asking EPA to object to the operating permit issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to Big River Steel, LLC (Big River) for its Steel Mill. Title V operating permit number 2305-AOP-R0 was issued on September 18, 2013, by the ADEQ to Big River for a new steel mill in Osceola, Mississippi County, Arkansas. EPA's October 31, 2017, Order responds to a petition submitted on October 9, 2013 by the Nucor Steel-Arkansas and Nucor-Yamato Steel Company (the Petitioners), pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The Act provides that a petitioner may ask for judicial review of those portions of the Orders that deny objections raised in the petitions in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to the Act.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and other supporting information at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the final Order, petition, and other supporting information. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final October 31, 2017, Order is available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/big_river_steel_response2013.pdf.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dinesh Senghani at (214) 665-7221, email address: [email protected] or the above EPA, Region 6 address.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object, as appropriate, to a title V operating permit proposed by a state permitting authority. Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661d(b)(2), and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days after the expiration of this review period, to object to a title V operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

    EPA received the petition from the Petitioners on October 9, 2013, for the operating permit issued on September 18, 2013, to Big River Steel, LLC located in Osceola, Mississippi County, Arkansas.

    The Petitioner requests that the Administrator object to the proposed operating permit issued by the ADEQ to Big River based on twelve claims. The claims are described in detail in Section IV of the Order. In summary, the issues raised are that: (1) ADEQ conducted an inadequate review of background air quality data; (2) the PM2.5 modeling is deficient because it excluded certain areas from the analysis; (3) the PM2.5 modeling is deficient because ADEQ failed to include secondary formation of PM2.5, and instead only included PM2.5 directly emitted by the facility; (4) ADEQ'S air quality impacts analysis for PM2.5 NAAQS was inadequate because there are discrepancies among different modeled PM2.5 annual impact values in or associated with the PM2.5 modeling.; (5) ADEQ and Big River failed to properly carry out an additional impacts analysis; (6) the emission factors for natural gas combustion used to issue the Draft Permit are conflicting; (7) Big River did not adequately demonstrate the basis for its proposed PM2.5 emission factors; (8) the Big River facility design was incomplete in critical ways that affected the validity of air quality modeling; (9) the permit does not contain enforceable permit conditions that lead to compliance; (10) the Permit does not contain adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) because it does not provide for a test method; (11) the Permit does not appropriately establish BACT requirements; and (12) ADEQ's Draft Permit does not comply with public notice and participation requirements. The Order issued on October 31, 2017, responds to the Petition and explains the basis for EPA's decision.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26400 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Sunshine Act Meeting; Farm Credit Administration Board AGENCY:

    Farm Credit Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice, regular meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

    DATES:

    The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on December 14, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to [email protected] See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about attendance requests.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available) and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

    Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • November 9, 2017 B. Reports • Quarterly Report on Economic Conditions and FCS Conditions • Semi-Annual Report on Office of Examination Operations Closed Session *

    * Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).

    • Office of Examination Quarterly Report Dated: December 5, 2017. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26475 Filed 12-5-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
    FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD Notice of Meeting Schedule AGENCY:

    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meetings.

    Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as amended in October, 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) will hold its meetings on the following dates unless otherwise noted.

    December 20 and 21, 2017 February 21 and 22, 2018 April 25 and 26, 2018 June 27 and 28, 2018 August 29 and 30, 2018 October 24 and 25, 2018 December 19 and 20, 2018

    A portion of each meeting may be closed to the public. The purpose of the meetings is to discuss issues related to:

    Accounting and Reporting of Government Land Classified Activities Department of Defense Implementation Guidance Request Evaluation of Existing Standards Leases Note Disclosures Risk Assumed Any other topics as needed

    Unless otherwise noted, FASAB meetings begin at 9 a.m. and conclude before 5 p.m. and are held at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Building at 441 G St. NW., in Room 7C13. Agendas and briefing materials will be available at http://www.fasab.gov/briefing-materials/approximately one week before each meeting.

    Any interested person may attend the meetings as an observer. Board discussion and reviews are open to the public except for those portions that are closed, as discussed below. GAO Building security requires advance notice of your attendance. If you wish to attend a FASAB meeting, please pre-register on our Web site at http://www.fasab.gov/pre-registration/ no later than 8 a.m. the Tuesday before the meeting to be observed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wendy Payne, FASAB Executive Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that FASAB may meet in closed session for a portion of each of its scheduled meetings listed above. Any closed session will not exceed five hours at each meeting. The reason for the closures is that matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) will be discussed. The discussions will involve matters of national defense that have been classified by appropriate authorities pursuant to Executive Order. A determination has been made in writing by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget, as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that such portions of the meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

    Authority:

    Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b).

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26397 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collection described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before February 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Manny Cabeza (202-898-3767), Counsel, MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Manny Cabeza, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal To Renew the Following Currently Approved Collections of Information

    1. Title: Recordkeeping, Disclosure and Reporting Requirements in Connection with Regulation Z.

    OMB Number: 3064-0082.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: State nonmember banks and state savings associations.

    General Description of Collection: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Regulation Z—12 CFR 1026 implements the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.) and certain provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). This regulation prescribes uniform methods for computing the cost of credit, the disclosure of credit terms and costs, the resolution of errors and imposes various other recordkeeping, reporting and disclosure requirements. The FDIC has enforcement authority on the requirements of the CFPB's Regulation over the financial institutions it supervises. This information collection captures the recordkeeping, reporting and disclosure burdens of Regulation Z on FDIC-supervised institutions.

    The information collection is being revised to account for revisions and changes made to Regulation Z by the CFPB since this information collection was last submitted to OMB for clearance.

    To arrive at the estimated annual burden the FDIC assessed the number of potential respondents to the information collection by identifying the number of FDIC-supervised institutions who reported activity that would be within the scope of the information collection requirements according to data from the most recent CALL Report. Additionally, the FDIC estimated the frequency of responses to the recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements by assessing the dollar volume of activity that would be within the scope of the information collection. In some instances the FDIC used information provided by other sources to estimate the magnitude and scope of activity attributable to FDIC-supervised institutions when more immediate information sources did not exist.

    Burden Estimate:

    Implementation (one-time) Burden Estimate Obligation to
  • respond/type
  • of burden
  • Estimated number of
  • respondents 1
  • Estimated
  • average
  • number of
  • credit
  • Accounts
  • Frequency of response Number of
  • responses
  • Estimated time per response (minutes) Total
  • estimated
  • annual burden
  • (hours)
  • Open-End Credit Products • Not Home-Secured Open-End Credit Plans ○ Credit and Charge Card Provisions Timely Settlement of Estate Debts (1026.11(c)(1)) Written Policies and Procedures Mandatory Recordkeeping 1 N/A 1 1 480.00 6 Ability to Pay (1026.51(a)(ii)) Written Policies and Procedures Mandatory Recordkeeping 1 N/A 1 1 480.00 6 Mortgage Products (Open and Closed-End) • Valuation Independence ○ Mandatory Reporting Implementation of Policies and Procedures (1026.42(g)) Mandatory Recordkeeping 1 N/A 1 0 1,200.00 20 Total Estimated Implementation Burden 32 Hours Ongoing Burden Estimate Open-End Credit Products • Not Home-Secured Open-End Credit Plans ○ General Disclosure Rules for Not Home-Secured Open-End Credit Plans Credit and Charge Card Applications and Solicitations (1026.60) Mandatory Disclosure 634 N/A 1 634 480.00 5,072 Account Opening Disclosures (1026.6(b)) Mandatory Disclosure 634 N/A 1 634 720.00 7,608 Periodic Statements (1026.7(b)) Mandatory Disclosure 634 N/A 12 7,608 480.00 60,864 Annual Statement of Billing Rights (1026.9(a)(1)) Mandatory Disclosure 317 N/A 1 317 480.00 2,536 Alternative Summary Statement of Billing Rights (1026.9(a)(2)) Voluntary Disclosure 317 N/A 12 3,804 480.00 30,432 Change in Terms Disclosures (1026.9(b) through (h)) Mandatory Disclosure 634 N/A 1 634 480.00 5,072 ○ Credit and Charge Card Provisions Timely Settlement of Estate Debts (1026.11(c)(2)) Mandatory Disclosure 634 428 1 271,352 5.00 22,613 Ability to Pay (1026.51) Mandatory Recordkeeping 634 N/A 1 634 720.00 7,608 College Student Credit Annual Report (1026.57(d)) Mandatory Reporting 634 N/A 1 634 480.00 5,072 Submission of Credit Card Agreements (1026.58(c)) Mandatory Reporting 634 N/A 4 2,536 180.00 7,608 Internet Posting of Credit Card Agreements (1026.58(d)) Mandatory Disclosure 634 N/A 4 2,536 360.00 15,216 Individual Credit Card Agreements (1026.58(e)) Mandatory Disclosure 634 125 1 79,250 15.00 19,813 • Home Equity Open-End Credit Plans (HELOC) ○ General Disclosure Rules for HELOC's Application Disclosures (1026.40) Mandatory Disclosure 2,717 N/A 1 2,717 720.00 32,604 Account Opening Disclosures (1026.6(a)) Mandatory Disclosure 2,717 N/A 1 2,717 720.00 32,604 Periodic Statements (1026.7(a)) Mandatory Disclosure 2,717 N/A 1 2,717 480.00 21,736 Annual Statement of Billing Rights (1026.9(a)(1)) Mandatory Disclosure 2,717 N/A 1 2,717 480.00 21,736 Alternative Summary Statement of Billing Rights (1026.9(a)(2)) Voluntary
  • Disclosure
  • 2,717 N/A 1 2,717 480.00 21,736
    Change in Terms Disclosures (1026.9(b) through (h)) Mandatory Disclosure 2,717 N/A 1 2,717 480.00 21,736 Notice to Restrict Credit (1026.9(c)(1)(iii); .40(f)(3)(i) and (vi)) Mandatory Disclosure 2,717 N/A 1 2,717 120.00 5,434 • All Open-End Credit Plans Error Resolution (1026.13) Mandatory Disclosure 3,624 2,963 1 10,737,912 1.0 178,965 Closed-End Credit Products • General Rules for Closed-End Credit Other than Real Estate, Home-Secured and Private Education Loans (1026.17 and .18) Mandatory Disclosure 1 N/A 1 1 720.00 12 • Closed-End Mortgages ○ Application and Consummation Loan Estimate (1026.19(e); and .37) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 480.00 29,204 Closing Disclosure (1026.19(f); and .38) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 480.00 29,204 Record Retention of Disclosures (1026.19(e), (f); .37; and .38) Mandatory Recordkeeping 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 18.00 1,088 ○ Post-Consummation Disclosures Interest Rate and Payment Summary (1026.18(s)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 2,400.00 145,120 No Guarantee to Refinance Statement (1026.18(t)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 480.00 29,204 ARMs Rate Adjustments with Payment Change Disclosures (1026.20(c)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 90.00 5,442 Initial Rate Adjustment Disclosure for ARMs (1026.20(d)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 120.00 7,256 Escrow Cancellation Notice (1026.20(e)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 480.00 29,204 Periodic Statements (1026.41) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 480.00 29,204 ○Ability to Repay Requirements Minimum Standards (1026.43(c) through (f)) Mandatory Recordkeeping 3,628 926 1 3,359,528 15.00 839,882 Prepayment Penalties (1026.43(g)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 16 1 58,048 12.00 11.610 Mortgage Products (Open and Closed-End) • Mortgage Servicing Disclosures ○ Payoff Statements Payoff Statements (1026.36(c)(3)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 480.00 29,024 ○ Notice of Sale or Transfer Notice of Sale or Transfer (1026.39) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 480.00 29,204 • Valuation Independence ○ Mandatory Reporting Reporting Appraiser Noncompliance (1026.42(g)) Mandatory Reporting 3,628 1 1 3,628 10.00 605 Reverse and High-Cost Mortgages • Reverse Mortgages ○ Reverse Mortgage Disclosures Reverse Mortgage Disclosures (1026.31(c)(2) and .33) Mandatory Disclosure 14 N/A 1 14 1,440.00 336 • High-Cost Mortgage Loans ○ HOEPA Disclosures and Notice HOEPA Disclosures and Notice (1026.32(c) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 N/A 1 3,628 14.00 847 Private Education Loans • Initial Disclosures ○ Application and Solicitation Disclosures Application or Solicitation Disclosures (1026.47(a)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,561 N/A 1 3,561 3,600.00 213,660 ○ Approval Disclosures Approval Disclosures (1026.47(b)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,561 N/A 1 3,561 3,600.00 213,660 ○ Final Disclosures Final Disclosures (1026.47(c)) Mandatory Disclosure 3,561 N/A 1 3,561 3,600.00 213,660 Advertising Rules • All Credit Types ○ Open-End Credit Open-End Credit (1026.16) Mandatory Disclosure 3,624 5 1 18,120 20.00 6,040 ○ Closed-End Credit Closed-End Credit (1026.24) Mandatory Disclosure 3,628 5 1 18,140 20.00 6,047 Record Retention • Evidence of Compliance Regulation Z in General (1026.25) Mandatory Recordkeeping 3,652 N/A 1 3,652 18.00 1,096 Total Estimated Ongoing Burden 2,396,494 Total Estimated Annual Burden 2,396,526  FDIC estimates that all existing FDIC-supervised institutions have implemented the policies and procedures required by Regulation Z and will only face the estimated ongoing (transaction) burdens reflected in the table below. The respondent count of 1 is intended as a placeholder for the associated burden estimate to account for any institution(s) that may become subject to the information collection requirements in the future.
    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 4th day of December, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26424 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the Conclusion of the open meeting on December 14, 2017.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Laura E. Sinram, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26516 Filed 12-5-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on any agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of each agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 201237.

    Title: MACS—CSAL Shipping Agreement.

    Parties: MACS Maritime Carrier Shipping Pte. Ltd. (MACS) and CSAL Canada-States-Africa Line Inc. (CSAL).

    Filing Party: Steven B. Chameides; Foley & Lardner LLP; Washington Harbour; 3000 K Street NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20007.

    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes CSAL and MACS to charter space to each other on an as-needed basis in the trade between the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts and ports in Africa.

    Agreement No.: 011931-008.

    Title: CMA CGM/Marfret Vessel Sharing Agreement for PAD Service.

    Parties: CMA CGM S.A. and Compagnie Maritime Marfret.

    Filing Party: Draughn B. Arbona, Esq.; Senior Counsel; CMA CGM (America), LLC. 5701 Lake Wright Drive, Norfolk, VA 23502-1868.

    Synopsis: This amendment increases the frequency of the service operated under this Agreement from fortnightly to weekly, and implements certain changes related to this transition to a weekly service.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26337 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-17-17ACE] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid Use Disorders Study to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June, 19, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received three comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.

    CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:

    (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and

    (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of notice publication.

    Proposed Project

    Evaluation of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid Use Disorder—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    This is a new Information Collection Request. CDC requests a three-year OMB approval.

    About 2 million people aged 12 or older in the United States have Opioid Use Disorders (OUDs) related to prescription opioids and almost 600,000 have OUDs related to heroin use (SAMHSA, 2015). OUD is a problematic pattern of opioid use that cause significant impairment or distress characterized by unsuccessful efforts to control use and failures to fulfill obligations social, at work, or school, yet many of these people do not receive OUD treatment. Given the continued need for treatment and the urgency of the opioid epidemic, further understanding of the individual and contextual factors that may impact treatment outcomes is needed. To help address this need, the CDC is conducting a study of 60 Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) treatment facilities and four primary care facilities located in 11 metropolitan statistical areas across the United States. The respondent universe includes individuals in the United States who receive some form of OUD treatment in the 11 MSAs.

    Prospective participants will be eligible if they are 18 to 64 years of age and initiating one of four primary treatments for OUD: Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), buprenorphine (BUP), naltrexone (NTX), or counseling treatment without medication (COUN). The study aims to enroll 3,560 clients across all sites to better understand the relationship between type of Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) and individual and treatment facility characteristics, and contextual factors.

    The information gained from this data collection will help inform policy makers, communities, and providers on how individual characteristics and contextual factors may impact client outcomes. The MAT study will also provide a unique perspective for three reasons: (1) It assesses the treatment, individual, and contextual factors that influence implementation and outcomes in real-world settings; (2) its large target sample size (n = 3,560); and, (3) the long follow-up window (i.e., 24-month follow-up period with clients). CDC has collaborated with other relevant federal agencies to avoid duplication and maximize efficiencies in data collection. The MAT Study design and protocols have been reviewed and shared with colleagues from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

    Four overarching evaluation questions guide the MAT Study. These questions drive the research design, and CDC developed this data collection effort to, specifically, address these evaluation questions. This data collection effort captures a series of outcome measures including the associated benefits (e.g., reductions in morbidity, mortality, and drug overdoses; improvements in socioeconomic outcomes and health-related quality of life [HRQOL]) and potential risks (e.g., side effects, diversion potential) of each treatment alternative.

    The study will use a mixed-methods approach using quantitative methods such as multilevel latent growth models, propensity score matching, latent class analysis and advanced mediation analysis and qualitative methods such as interactive coding and analysis for common themes.

    The total estimated annualized burden for this collection is 3,093 hours. The only cost to respondents will be time spent responding to the surveys.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Clients Client Screener 1,583 1 5/60 Client Check-In 1,187 2 15/60 Client Questionnaire Baseline 1,187 1 52/60 Client Questionnaire 12-Month Follow-up 930 1 45/60 Client Questionnaire 24-Month Follow-up 744 1 45/60 Client Focus Groups 27 1 90/60 Treatment facility staff Staff Focus Groups 27 1 90/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26399 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Docket Number CDC-2017-0104, NIOSH-304] Draft—National Occupational Research Agenda for Traumatic Injury Prevention AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the availability of a draft NORA Agenda entitled National Occupational Research Agenda for Traumatic Injury Prevention for public comment. To view the notice and related materials, visit https://www.regulations.gov. and enter CDC-2017-0104 in the search field and click “Search.”

    Table of Contents • Dates • Addresses • For Further Information Contact • Supplementary Information • Background
    DATES:

    Electronic or written comments must be received by February 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2017-0104 and docket number NIOSH-304, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Docket Office, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-34, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226-1998.

    Instructions: All submissions received in response to this notice must include the agency name and docket number [CDC-2017-0104; NIOSH-304]. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. All information received in response to this notice will also be available for public examination and copying at the NIOSH Docket Office, 1150 Tusculum Avenue, Room 155, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Novicki ([email protected]), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop E-20, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, phone (404) 498-2581 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) is a partnership program created to stimulate innovative research and improved workplace practices. The national agenda is developed and implemented through the NORA sector and cross-sector councils. Each council develops and maintains an agenda for its sector or cross-sector.

    Background: The National Occupational Research Agenda for Traumatic Injury Prevention (the Agenda) is intended to identify the research, information, and actions most urgently needed to prevent occupational traumatic injuries. The National Occupational Research Agenda for Traumatic Injury Prevention provides a vehicle for industry stakeholders to describe the most relevant issues, gaps, and safety and health needs for the cross-sector. Each NORA research agenda is meant to guide or promote high priority research efforts on a national level, conducted by various entities, including government, higher education, and the private sector.

    This is the first Traumatic Injury Prevention Agenda, developed for the third decade of NORA (2016-2026). The Agenda was developed considering information about injuries, the state of the science, and the probability that new information and approaches will make a difference.

    As the steward of the NORA process, NIOSH invites comments on the draft National Occupational Research Agenda for Traumatic Injury Prevention. Comments expressing support or with specific recommendations to improve the Agenda are requested. A copy of the draft Agenda is available at https://www.regulations.gov (search Docket Number CDC-2017-0104).

    Frank Hearl, Chief of Staff, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26359 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Annual Statistical Report on Children in Foster Homes and Children in Families Receiving Payment in Excess of the Poverty Income Level from a State Program Funded under Part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act.

    OMB No.: 0970-0004.

    Description: The Department of Health and Human Services is required to collect these data under section 1124 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by Public Law 114-95. The data are used by the U.S. Department of Education for allocation of funds for programs to aid disadvantaged elementary and secondary students. Respondents include various components of State Human Service agencies.

    Respondents: The 52 respondents include the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Annual Statistical Report on Children in Foster Homes and Children Receiving Payments in Excess of the Poverty Level From a State Program Funded Under Part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act 52 1 264.35 13,746.20

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 13,746.20.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26353 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6476] Pediatric Rare Diseases—A Collaborative Approach for Drug Development Using Gaucher Disease as a Model; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Pediatric Rare Diseases—A Collaborative Approach for Drug Development Using Gaucher Disease as a Model.” This draft guidance focuses on drug development for pediatric patients with Gaucher disease. In particular, it proposes for consideration a novel approach to improve the efficiency of drug development in pediatric rare diseases using Gaucher disease as an example. The emergence of concomitant trials for multiple investigational drug products for the treatment of rare diseases can pose significant challenges to effective drug development, because there are limited numbers of patients for any given rare condition worldwide. This approach discusses the feasibility of the development of multiple drug products in a time-efficient manner while minimizing the number of patients necessary to be treated with placebo.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 5, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6476 for “Pediatric Rare Diseases—A Collaborative Approach for Drug Development Using Gaucher Disease as a Model; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability”. Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hong Vu, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5345, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Pediatric Rare Diseases—A Collaborative Approach for Drug Development Using Gaucher Disease as a Model.” The emergence of concomitant trials for multiple investigational drug products for the treatment of rare disease can pose significant challenges to effective drug development, given the limited number of patients worldwide with these diagnoses. This guidance discusses, among other things, a multi-arm, multi-company clinical trial as a novel approach to enhance the efficiency of drug development in pediatric rare diseases using pediatric Gaucher disease as an example. The proposal applies only to systemic (i.e., non-neurological) manifestations of Gaucher disease (i.e., patients with Type I and Type III phenotypes).

    The purpose of this guidance is to facilitate drug development in pediatric rare diseases, with a focus on Gaucher disease. In this guidance, Gaucher disease is provided as a disease model. However, the principles underlying this proposal may be extended to other areas of drug development in rare diseases. The guidance was originally a document developed as a strategic collaboration between FDA and the European Medicines Agency to enhance the efficiency of drug development in Gaucher disease, which was released in 2014 for public comment. The draft guidance is an updated version of the document and has no fundamental changes to the original intent and content.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Pediatric Rare Diseases—A Collaborative Approach for Drug Development Using Gaucher Disease as a Model.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously 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 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively. The collections of information in 21 CFR 201.57 for the content and format of prescription drug labeling was approved under OMB control number 0910-0572.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26357 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1161] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Safety Survey AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0345. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Food Safety Survey OMB Control Number 0910-0345—Extension

    Under section 1003(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)), we are authorized to conduct research relating to foods and to conduct educational and public information programs relating to the safety of the nation's food supply. The Food Safety Survey measures consumers' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about food safety. Previous versions of the survey were collected in 1988, 1993, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2010, and 2016. Food Safety Survey data are used to measure trends in consumer food safety habits including hand and cutting board washing, cooking practices, and use of food thermometers. Data are also used to evaluate educational messages and to inform policymakers about consumer attitudes about technologies such as food irradiation and biotechnology.

    The proposed Food Safety Survey will contain many of the same questions and topics as previous Food Safety Surveys to facilitate measuring trends in food safety knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors over time. The proposed survey will also be updated to explore emerging consumer food safety topics and expand understanding of previously asked topics.

    The methods for the proposed Food Safety Survey will be largely the same as those used with the previous Food Safety Surveys with the exception of the inclusion of address based sampling (ABS) methods to explore the method as a possible alternative for new survey questions. ABS is sampling from address frames that are usually based, in part, on residential addresses in the U.S. Postal Service Computerized Delivery Sequence File. ABS is a cost effective method of sampling that provides much coverage of U.S. households for in-person, mail, telephone, and multimode surveys (including web-based surveys.) The Food Safety Survey will continue to include cell phones in addition to landlines for the telephone interviews. A nationally representative sample of 4,000 adults will be selected at random to complete the survey. The survey will also include an oversample of Hispanics and Blacks to ensure a minimum of 400 each. Additionally, methods will be employed to test for the presence of response bias. Participation in the survey will be voluntary. Cognitive interviews and a pre-test will be conducted prior to fielding the survey.

    In the Federal Register of July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30871), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. We received two comments. One commenter discussed the importance of food safety, for which FDA agrees, and one commenter provided a comment which was unrelated to the information collection. After evaluating these comments, FDA will not revise the information collection.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average burden
  • per response
  • Total hours
    Cognitive interview screener 75 1 75 0.083 (5 minutes) 6 Cognitive interview 9 1 9 1 9 Pretest screener 45 1 45 0.0167 (1 minute) 1 Pretest 18 1 18 0.33 (20 minutes) 6 Survey screener 10,000 1 10,000 0.0167 (1 minute) 167 Survey 4,000 1 4,000 0.33 (20 minutes) 1,320 Non-response survey screener 125 1 125 0.0167 (1 minute) 2 Non-response survey 50 1 50 0.167 (10 minutes) 8 Total 1,519 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA's burden estimate is based on the Agency's prior experience with the Food Safety Survey. FDA estimates that the burden hours for this information collection will remain the same since the last OMB approval.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26356 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01).

    Date: January 9, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jay R. Radke, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3G11B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane MSC-9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5046, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 1, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26324 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Time-Sensitive Review of Potential Exposures Associated with Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

    Date: December 19, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Keystone Building, 530 Davis Drive, Room 3118, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (Teleconference).

    Contact Person: Laura A. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-541-2824, [email protected].

    Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 1, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26325 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Small Business Drug Discovery for Neurological Disorders.

    Date: December 11, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Yvonne Bennett, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5199, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-379-3793, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 1, 2017. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26323 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1762] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case No. Chief executive officer of community Community map
  • repository
  • Online location of letter of map revision Date of
  • modification
  • Community
  • No.
  • Alabama: Greene Unincorporated areas of Greene County (17-04-5766P). The Honorable Tennyson Smith, Chairman, Greene County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 628, Eutaw, AL 35462. Greene County, Engineering Department, 521 Prairie Avenue South, Eutaw, AL 35462. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 25, 2018 010091 Jefferson Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County (17-04-7129X). The Honorable James A. Stephens, Chairman, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, 716 Richard Arrington, Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, AL 35203. Jefferson County Land Development Department, 716 Richard Arrington, Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, AL 35203. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Feb. 12, 2018 010217 Colorado: Arapahoe City of Aurora (17-08-0697P). Mr. George Noe, Manager, City of Aurora, 15151 East Alameda Parkway, 5th Floor, Aurora, CO 80012. Municipal Center, 15151 East Alameda Parkway, 3rd Floor, Aurora, CO 80012. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Feb. 2, 2018 080002 Connecticut: Fairfield Town of Westport (17-01-0033P). The Honorable Jim Marpe, First Selectman, Town of Westport Board of Selectmen, 110 Myrtle Avenue, Room 310, Westport, CT 06880. Planning and Zoning Department, 110 Myrtle Avenue, Room 203, Westport, CT 06880. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 8, 2018 090019 New Haven City of Meriden (17-01-0418P). Mr. Guy Scaife, Manager, City of Meriden, 142 East Main Street, Meriden, CT 06450. Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, 142 East Main Street, Meriden, CT 06450. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 3, 2018 090081 Florida: Charlotte Unincorporated areas of Charlotte County (17-04-4506P). The Honorable Bill Truex, Chairman, Charlotte County Board of Commissioners, 18500 Murdock Circle, Suite 536, Port Charlotte, FL 33948. Charlotte County Community Development Department, 18400 Murdock Circle, Port Charlotte, FL 33948. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Dec. 29, 2017 120061 Duval City of Jacksonville (17-04-1816P). The Honorable Lenny Curry, Mayor, City of Jacksonville, 117 West Duval Street, Suite 400, Jacksonville, FL 32202. Development Services Division, 214 North Hogan Street, Suite 2100, Jacksonville, FL 32202. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 30, 2018 120077 Lee City of Sanibel (17-04-4409P). The Honorable Kevin Ruane, Mayor, City of Sanibel, 800 Dunlop Road, Sanibel, FL 33957. Planning and Code Enforcement Department, 800 Dunlop Road, Sanibel, FL 33957. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 17, 2018 120402 Monroe Unincorporated areas of Monroe County (17-04-5313P). The Honorable George Neugent, Mayor, Monroe County Board of Commissioners, 25 Ships Way, Big Pine Key, FL 33043. Monroe County Building Department, 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 300, Marathon, FL 33040. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 2, 2018 125129 Monroe Unincorporated areas of Monroe County (17-04-5430P). The Honorable George Neugent, Mayor, Monroe County Board of Commissioners, 25 Ships Way, Big Pine Key, FL 33043. Monroe County Building Department, 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 300, Marathon, FL 33040. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 4, 2018 125129 Monroe Unincorporated areas of Monroe County (17-04-5774P). The Honorable George Neugent, Mayor, Monroe County Board of Commissioners, 25 Ships Way, Big Pine Key, FL 33043. Monroe County Building Department, 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 300, Marathon, FL 33040. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 5, 2018 125129 Palm Beach Village of Tequesta (17-04-2100P). The Honorable Abby Brennan, Mayor, Village of Tequesta, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, FL 33469. Building Department, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, FL 33469. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 11, 2018 120228 Pinellas Town of Redington Shores (17-04-6065P). The Honorable Bert Adams, Mayor, Town of Redington Shores, 17425 Gulf Boulevard, Redington Shores, FL 33708. Building Department, 17425 Gulf Boulevard, Redington Shores, FL 33708. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Feb. 5, 2018 125141 Polk Unincorporated areas of Polk County (17-04-0850P). The Honorable Melony M. Bell, Chair, Polk County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 9005, Drawer BC01, Bartow, FL 33831. Polk County Land Development Division, 330 West Church Street, Bartow, FL 33830. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 4, 2018 120261 Sarasota City of Sarasota (17-04-2771P). The Honorable Shelli Freeland Eddie, Mayor, City of Sarasota, 1565 1st Street, Room 101, Sarasota, FL 34236. Neighborhood and Development Services Department, 1565 1st Street, Sarasota, FL 34236. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 25, 2018 125150 Sarasota City of Sarasota (17-04-5953P). The Honorable Shelli Freeland Eddie, Mayor, City of Sarasota, 1565 1st Street, Room 101, Sarasota, FL 34236. Neighborhood and Development Services Department, 1565 1st Street, Sarasota, FL 34236. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 24, 2018 125150 Maryland: Frederick Town of New Market (17-03-0470P). The Honorable Winslow F. Burhans, III, Mayor, Town of New Market, P.O. Box 27, New Market, MD 21774. Town Hall, 39 West Main Street, New Market, MD 21774. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Mar. 14, 2018 240088 Massachusetts: Barnstable Town of Mashpee (17-01-1864P). The Honorable Thomas F. O'Hara, Chairman, Town of Mashpee Board of Selectmen, 16 Great Neck Road North, Mashpee, MA 02649. Building Department, 16 Great Neck Road North, Mashpee, MA 02649. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Feb. 5, 2018 250009 Bristol Town of Dartmouth (17-01-1797P). The Honorable Frank S. Gracie III, Chairman, Town of Dartmouth Board of Selectmen, 400 Slocum Road, Dartmouth, MA 02747. Building Department, 400 Slocum Road, Dartmouth, MA 02747. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 25, 2018 250051 Mississippi: DeSoto City of Hernando (17-04-4941P). The Honorable Tom Ferguson, Mayor, City of Hernando, 475 West Commerce Street, Hernando, MS 38632. Planning Department, 475 West Commerce Street, Hernando, MS 38632. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 24, 2018 280292 DeSoto Unincorporated areas of DeSoto County (17-04-5325P). The Honorable Michael Lee, President, DeSoto County Board of Supervisors, 365 Losher Street, Suite 300, Hernando, MS 38632. DeSoto County Administration Building, 365 Losher Street, Suite 200, Hernando, MS 38632. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 26, 2018 280050 Montana: Lewis and Clark Unincorporated areas of Lewis and Clark County (17-08-0367P). The Honorable Susan Good Geise, Chair, Lewis and Clark County Board of Commissioners, 316 North Park Avenue, Room 345, Helena, MT 59623. Lewis and Clark County Law Enforcement Center, 221 Breckenridge Avenue, Helena, MT 59601. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 26, 2018 300038 New Mexico: Bernalillo City of Albuquerque (17-06-1859P). The Honorable Richard J. Berry, Mayor, City of Albuquerque, P.O. Box 1293, Albuquerque, NM 87103. Development Review Services Division, 600 2nd Street Northwest, Albuquerque, NM 87102. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 10, 2018 350002 North Carolina: Wake City of Raleigh (16-04-2708P). The Honorable Nancy McFarlane, Mayor, City of Raleigh, P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602. Stormwater Management Division, 1 Exchange Plaza, Suite 304, Raleigh, NC 27601. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 29, 2018 370243 North Dakota: Cass City of Casselton (17-08-0564P). The Honorable Lee Anderson, Mayor, City of Casselton, P.O. Box 548, Casselton, ND 58012. Auditor's Office, 702 1st Street North, Casselton, ND 58012. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 25, 2018 380020 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City of Oklahoma City (17-06-2212P). The Honorable Mick Cornett, Mayor, City of Oklahoma City, 200 North Walker Avenue, 3rd Floor, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. Department of Public Works, 420 West Main Street, Suite 700, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Feb. 5, 2018 405378 Pennsylvania: Lackawanna City of Scranton (17-03-0447P). The Honorable William L. Courtright, Mayor, City of Scranton, 340 North Washington Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503. City Hall, 340 North Washington Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Feb. 7, 2018 420538 South Carolina: Horry City of North Myrtle Beach (17-04-2716P). The Honorable Marilyn Hatley, Mayor, City of North Myrtle Beach, 1018 2nd Avenue South, North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582. Planning and Development Department, 1018 2nd Avenue South, North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 18, 2018 450110 Richland City of Forest Acres (17-04-4597P). The Honorable Frank Brunson, Mayor, City of Forest Acres, 5209 North Trenholm Road, Columbia, SC 29206. City Hall, 5209 North Trenholm Road, Columbia, SC 29206. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 23, 2018 450174 Richland Town of Arcadia Lakes (17-04-4597P). The Honorable Mark Huguley, Mayor, Town of Arcadia Lakes, 6740 North Trenholm Road, Columbia, SC 29206. Town Hall, 6911 North Trenholm Road, Suite 2, Columbia, SC 29206. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 23, 2018 450171 Richland Unincorporated areas of Richland County (17-04-4597P). The Honorable Joyce Dickerson, Chair, Richland County Council, 2020 Hampton Street, Columbia, SC 29204. Richland County Development Services Department, 2020 Hampton Street, Columbia, SC 29204. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 23, 2018 450170 South Dakota: Meade City of Sturgis (17-08-0491P). Mr. Daniel Ainslie, Manager, City of Sturgis, 1040 Harley-Davidson Way, Sturgis, SD 57785. Engineering Department, 1040 Harley-Davidson Way, Sturgis, SD 57785. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 25, 2018 460055 Texas: Bexar City of San Antonio (17-06-3073P). The Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283. Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 5, 2018 480045 Burnet Unincorporated areas of Burnet County (17-06-3660X). The Honorable James Oakley, Burnet County Judge, 220 South Pierce Street, Burnet, TX 78611. Burnet County Environmental Services Department, 133 East Jackson Street, Room 107, Burnet, TX 78611. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 25, 2018 481209 Collin Town of Prosper (17-06-1400P). The Honorable Ray Smith, Mayor, Town of Prosper, P.O. Box 307, Prosper, TX 75078. Engineering Services Department, 407 East 1st Street, Prosper, TX 75078. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 16, 2018 480141 Collin Town of Prosper (17-06-1828P). The Honorable Ray Smith, Mayor, Town of Prosper, P.O. Box 307, Prosper, TX 75078 Engineering Services Department, 407 East 1st Street, Prosper, TX 75078. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 18, 2018 480141 Collin City of Wylie (17-06-1285P). The Honorable Eric Hogue, Mayor, City of Wylie, 300 Country Club Road, Building 100, Wylie, TX 75098. City Hall, 300 Country Club Road, Building 100, Wylie, TX 75098. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 4, 2018 480759 Collin Unincorporated areas of Collin County (17-06-1140P). The Honorable Keith Self, Collin County Judge, 2300 Bloomdale Road, Suite 4192, McKinney, TX 75071. Collin County Engineering Department, 4690 Community Avenue, Suite 200, McKinney, TX 75071. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Dec. 11, 2017 480130 Collin and Denton City of Celina (17-06-1400P). The Honorable Sean Terry, Mayor, City of Celina, 142 North Ohio Street, Celina, TX 75009. City Hall, 142 North Ohio Street, Celina, TX 75009. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 16, 2018 480133 Dallas City of Dallas (17-06-1022P). The Honorable Michael Rawlings, Mayor, City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 5EN, Dallas, TX 75201. Engineering Department, 320 East Jefferson Boulevard, Room 200, Dallas, TX 75201. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Dec. 4, 2017 480171 Dallas City of Garland (17-06-0906P). The Honorable Douglas Athas, Mayor, City of Garland, 200 North 5th Street, Garland, TX 75040. Municipal Building, 800 Main Street, Garland, TX 75040. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Dec. 18, 2017 485471 Dallas City of Sachse (17-06-0906P). The Honorable Mike Felix, Mayor, City of Sachse, 3815 Sachse Road, Building B, Sachse, TX 75048. Public Works Department, 3815 Sachse Road, Building B, Sachse, TX 75048. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Dec. 18, 2017 480186 El Paso Unincorporated areas of El Paso County (17-06-1021P). The Honorable Veronica Escobar, El Paso County Judge, 500 East San Antonio Street, Suite 301, El Paso, TX 79901. El Paso County Public Works Department, 800 East Overland Avenue, Suite 407, El Paso, TX 79901. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 22, 2018 480212 Galveston City of Galveston (17-06-2017P). The Honorable Jim Yarbrough, Mayor, City of Galveston, P.O. Box 779, Galveston, TX 77553. Building Department, 823 Rosenberg Street, Galveston, TX 77553. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Feb. 6, 2018 485469 Kendall City of Boerne (17-06-1075P). Mr. Ronald Bowman, Manager, City of Boerne, 402 East Blanco Road, Boerne, TX 78006. Code Enforcement Division, 402 East Blanco Road, Boerne, TX 78006. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Dec. 26, 2017 480418 Kendall Unincorporated areas of Kendall County (17-06-1075P). The Honorable Darrel L. Lux, Kendall County Judge, 201 East San Antonio Avenue, Suite 122, Boerne, TX 78006. Kendall County Engineering Department, 201 East San Antonio Avenue, Suite 101, Boerne, TX 78006. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Dec. 26, 2017 480417 Tarrant City of Fort Worth (17-06-2042P). The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 200 Texas Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102. Transportation and Public Works Department, 200 Texas Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 4, 2018 480596 Tarrant City of Fort Worth (17-06-2839P). The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 200 Texas Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102. Transportation and Public Works Department, 200 Texas Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 29, 2018 480596 Tarrant City of Grand Prairie (17-06-2864P). The Honorable Ron Jensen, Mayor, City of Grand Prairie, P.O. Box 534045, Grand Prairie, TX 75053. Development Center, 206 West Church Street, Grand Prairie, TX 75050. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 25, 2018 485472 Tarrant City of Saginaw (17-06-1745P). The Honorable Todd Flippo, Mayor, City of Saginaw, 333 West McLeroy Boulevard, Saginaw, TX 76179. City Hall, 333 West McLeroy Boulevard, Saginaw, TX 76179. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 25, 2018 480610 Williamson Unincorporated areas of Williamson County (17-06-3660X). The Honorable Dan A. Gattis, Williamson County Judge, 710 South Main Street, Suite 101, Georgetown, TX 78626. Williamson County Department of Infrastructure, 3151 Southeast Inner Loop, Suite B, Georgetown, TX 78626. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Jan. 25, 2018 481079
    [FR Doc. 2017-26331 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4344-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] California; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California (FEMA-4344-DR), dated October 10, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California is hereby amended to include permanent work under the Public Assistance program for those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 10, 2017.

    Butte, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Orange, Sonoma, and Yuba Counties (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26327 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002] Final Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    The date of March 20, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address Kossuth County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1667 City of Algona City Hall, 112 West Call Street, Algona, IA 50511. City of Bancroft City Hall, 105 East Ramsey Street, Bancroft, IA 50517. City of Fenton City Hall, 611 Maple Street, Fenton, IA 50539. City of Lakota City Hall, 204 3rd Street, Lakota, IA 50451. City of Titonka City Hall, 543 Dieckman Street Northeast, Titonka, IA 50480. City of Wesley City Hall, 105 2nd Street South, Wesley, IA 50483. City of Whittemore City Hall, 315 4th Street, Whittemore, IA 50598. Unincorporated Areas of Kossuth County Kossuth County Courthouse, 114 West State Street, Algona, IA 50511. Vernon Parish, Louisiana and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1663 City of Leesville City Hall, 101 West Lee Street, Leesville, LA 71446. Town of Hornbeck Town Hall, 939 Hammond Street, Hornbeck, LA 71439. Town of New Llano City Hall, 109 Stanton Street, New Llano, LA 71461. Unincorporated Areas of Vernon Parish Vernon Parish Public Works Department, 602 Alexandria Highway, Leesville, LA 71446. Village of Anacoco Village Hall, 4973 Main Street, Anacoco, LA 71403.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26339 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3390-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-3390-EM), dated September 18, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued November 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective September 22, 2017.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26333 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4321-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Nebraska; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4321-DR), dated June 26, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The change occurred on November 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, DuWayne W. Tewes, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of Michael R. Scott as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26369 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4349-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Alabama; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4349-DR), dated November 16, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATE:

    The declaration was issued November 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 16, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Alabama resulting from Hurricane Nate during the period of October 6-10, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Alabama.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Warren J. Riley, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Alabama have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Baldwin, Choctaw, Clarke, Mobile, and Washington Counties for all categories of Public Assistance.

    Autauga, Dallas, and Macon Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B) under the Public Assistance program.

    All areas within the State of Alabama are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26338 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4334-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Iowa; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4334-DR), dated August 27, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The change occurred on November 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Keith D. DuPont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of Michael R. Scott as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26370 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4337-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Florida; Amendment No. 13 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued October 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective October 18, 2017.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26329 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4344-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] California; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4344-DR), dated October 10, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued November 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 22, 2017, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), in a letter to Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of California resulting from wildfires beginning on October 8, 2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”).

    Therefore, I amend my declaration of October 10, 2017, to authorize a 100 percent Federal cost share for emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, for a period of 30 days.

    This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section 408), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.

    (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)
    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26326 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4325-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Nebraska; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4325-DR), dated August 1, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The change occurred on November 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, DuWayne W. Tewes, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of Michael R. Scott as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26368 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4347-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Kansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4347-DR), dated November 7, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The declaration was issued November 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 7, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Kansas resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of July 22-27, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Kansas.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David G. Samaniego, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Kansas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Johnson and Wyandotte Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Kansas are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26330 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002] Final Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    The date of March 6, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address DeSoto County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1655 Town of Walls Town Hall, 9087 Nail Road, Walls, MS 38680. Unincorporated Areas of DeSoto County DeSoto County Geographic Information Systems, 365 Losher Street, Suite 350, Hernando, MS 38632.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26334 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4319-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Kansas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4319-DR), dated June 16, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The change occurred on November 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Constance C. Johnson-Cage, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of Michael R. Scott as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26344 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

    DATES:

    Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case
  • No.
  • Chief executive officer of community Community map repository Date of modification Community
  • No.
  • Arizona: Greenlee (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) Unincorporated Areas of Greenlee County (17-09-0131P) The Honorable David Gomez, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Greenlee County, P.O. Box 908, Clifton, AZ 85533 Greenlee County Planning and Zoning Department, 253 5th Street, Clifton, AZ 85533 Sep. 14, 2017 040110 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) City of Peoria (17-09-0311P) The Honorable Cathy Carlat, Mayor, City of Peoria, 8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 City Hall, 8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 Aug. 25, 2017 040050 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) City of Scottsdale (17-09-0074P) The Honorable W.J. “Jim” Lane, Mayor, City of Scottsdale, City Hall, 3939 North Drinkwater Boulevard, Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Scottsdale Planning Records, 7447 East Indian School Road, Suite 100, Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Aug. 25, 2017 045012 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) Unincorporated Areas of Maricopa County (16-09-2971P) The Honorable Denny Barney, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County, 301 West Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 Flood Control District of Maricopa County, 2801 West Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009 Sep. 1, 2017 040037 Pinal (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) Unincorporated Areas of Pinal County (16-09-2973P) The Honorable Stephen Miller, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Pinal County, 135 North Pinal Street, Florence, AZ 85132 Pinal County Department of Public Works, 31 North Pinal Street, Building F, Florence, AZ 85132 Aug. 23, 2017 040077 California: Butte (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) Unincorporated Areas of Butte County (17-09-0110P) The Honorable Bill Connelly, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Butte County, 5280 Lower Wyandotte Road, Oroville, CA 95966 Butte County Department of Public Works, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 Aug. 30, 2017 060017 Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) City of Wildomar (17-09-0430P) The Honorable Timothy Walker, Mayor, City of Wildomar, 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Suite 201, Wildomar, CA 92595 City Hall, 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Suite 201, Wildomar, CA 92595 Sep. 15, 2017 060221 Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) Unincorporated Areas of Riverside County (17-09-0232P) The Honorable John F. Tavaglione, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Riverside County, 4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor, Riverside, CA 9250 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1995 Market Street, Riverside, CA 92502 Sep. 8, 2017 060245 Hawaii: Honolulu (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) City and County of Honolulu (16-09-2530P) The Honorable Kirk Caldwell, Mayor, City of Honolulu, 530 South King Street, Room 300, Honolulu, HI 96813 Department of Planning and Permitting, 650 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813 Sep. 8, 2017 150001 Maui (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) Maui County (17-09-0740P) The Honorable Alan M. Arakawa, Mayor, Maui County, 200 South High Street, Kalana O Maui Building 9th Floor, Wailuku, HI 96793 County of Maui Planning Department, 2200 Main Street, Suite 335, Wailuku, HI 96793 Sep. 8, 2017 150003 Illinois: Will (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) Village of Plainfield (15-05-7793P) The Honorable Michael P. Collins, Village President, Village of Plainfield, 24401 West Lockport Street, Plainfield, IL 60544 Village Hall, 24401 West Lockport Street, Plainfield, IL 60544 Aug. 18, 2017 170771 Indiana: Marion (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) City of Indianapolis (17-05-1432P) The Honorable Joe Hogsett, Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2501 City-County Building, 200 East Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204 City Hall, 1200 Madison Avenue, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN 46225 Sep.12, 2017 180159 Iowa: Ringgold (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) Unincorporated Areas of Ringgold County (17-07-0216P) The Honorable Paul Dykstra, Chairperson, Ringgold County Board of Supervisors, County Courthouse, 109 West Madison Street, Mount Ayr, IA 50854 Ringgold County Courthouse, 109 West Madison Street, Mount Ayr, IA 50854 Aug. 18, 2017 190903 Kansas: Johnson (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) City of Overland Park (17-07-0741P) The Honorable Carl Gerlach, Mayor, City of Overland Park, City Hall, 8500 Santa Fe Drive, Overland Park, KS 66212 City Hall, 8500 Santa Fe Drive, Overland Park, KS 66212 Sep. 5, 2017 200174 Riley (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) City of Ogden (16-07-1213P) The Honorable Robert R. Pence, Jr., Mayor, City of Ogden, 222 Riley Avenue, Ogden, KS 66517 City Hall, 222 Riley Avenue, Ogden, KS 66517 Aug. 10, 2017 200301 Riley (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) Unincorporated Areas of Riley County (16-07-1213P) Mr. Ron Wells, Chair, Riley County Commissioner, 3609 Anderson Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66503 Riley County Office Building, 110 Courthouse Plaza, Manhattan, KS 66502 Aug. 10, 2017 200298 Michigan: Kalamazoo (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) City of Kalamazoo (16-05-5168P) The Honorable Bobby J. Hopewell, Mayor, City of Kalamazoo, 241 West South Street, Kalamazoo, MI 49007 City Hall, 241 West South Street, Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Aug. 22, 2017 260315 Macomb (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) Charter Township of Clinton (17-05-2484P) Mr. Robert J. Cannon, Supervisor, Charter Township of Clinton, 40700 Romeo Plank Road, Clinton Township, MI 48038 City Hall, 40700 Romeo Plank Road, Clinton Township, MI 48038 Sep. 14, 2017 260121 Missouri: St. Louis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) City of Des Peres (17-07-0868P) The Honorable Richard G. Lahr, Mayor, City of Des Peres, 12325 Manchester Road, Des Peres, MO 63131 City Hall, 12325 Manchester Road, Des Peres, MO 63131 Sep. 5, 2017 290347 St. Louis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) City of Maryland Heights (17-07-0909P) The Honorable Michael Moeller, Mayor, City of Maryland Heights, 11911 Dorsett Road, Maryland Heights, MO 63043 Maryland Heights Government Center, 11911 Dorsett Road, Maryland Heights, MO 63043 Sep. 15, 2017 290889 New Jersey: Passaic (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) City of Paterson (17-02-0940P) The Honorable Jose Torres, Mayor, City of Paterson, City Hall, 155 Market Street, Paterson, NJ 07505 City Hall, 155 Market Street, Paterson, NJ 07505 Aug. 25, 2017 340404 New York: Rockland (FEMA Docket No.: B-1722) Town of Clarkstown (16-02-1162P) Mr. George Hoehmann, Supervisor, Town of Clarkstown, 10 Maple Avenue, New City, NY 10956 Town Hall, 10 Maple Avenue, New City, NY 10956 Sep. 15, 2017 360679 Rockland (FEMA Docket No.: B-1722) Village of Spring Valley (16-02-1162P) The Honorable Demeza Delhomme, Mayor, Village of Spring Valley, 200 North Main Street, Spring Valley, NY 10977 Building Department, 200 North Main Street, Spring Valley, NY 10977 Sep. 15, 2017 365344 Oregon: Multnomah (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) City of Portland (17-10-0646X) The Honorable Charlie Hales, Mayor, City of Portland, 1221 Southwest 4th Avenue, Room 340, Portland, OR 97204 Bureau of Environmental Services, 1221 Southwest 4th Avenue, Room 230, Portland, OR 97204 Aug. 24, 2017 410183 South Carolina: Spartanburg (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) Unincorporated Areas of Spartanburg County (17-04-2662P) Ms. Katherine L. O'Neill, County Administrator Spartanburg County, Administration Building, 366 North Church Street, Spartanburg, SC 29303 Spartanburg County Administration Building, 366 North Church Street, Spartanburg, SC 29303 Sep. 19, 2017 450176 Texas: Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) City of Dallas (17-06-0526P) The Honorable Michael S. Rawlings, Mayor, City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 5EN, Dallas, TX 75201 Department of Public Works, 320 East Jefferson Boulevard, Room 321, Dallas, TX 75203 Aug. 25, 2017 480171 Wisconsin: Brown (FEMA Docket No.: B-1726) Village of Bellevue (16-05-4339P) The Honorable Steve Soukup, President, Village Board, 2828 Allouez Avenue, Bellevue, WI 54311 Village Hall, 2828 Allouez Avenue, Bellevue, WI 54311 Sep. 1, 2017 550627 Kenosha (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) Village of Pleasant Prairie (17-05-1426P) Mr. John P. Steinbrink, Village President, Village of Pleasant Prairie, Village Hall, 9915 39th Avenue, Pleasant Prairie, WI 53158 Village Hall, 9915 39th Avenue, Pleasant Prairie, WI 53158 Sep. 12, 2017 550613 Waukesha (FEMA Docket No.: B-1730) Village of Sussex (17-05-0249P) Mr. Jeremy Smith, Village Administrator, Village of Sussex, N64W23760 Main Street, Sussex, WI 53089 Village Hall, N64W23760 Main Street, Sussex, WI 53089 Aug. 25, 2017 550490
    [FR Doc. 2017-26332 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4340-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4340-DR), dated September 20, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued November 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective September 22, 2017.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26335 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4348-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] New York; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-4348-DR), dated November 14, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The declaration was issued November 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 14, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New York resulting from flooding during the period of May 2 to August 6, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of New York.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Seamus K. Leary, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of New York have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Jefferson, Niagara, Orleans, Oswego, St. Lawrence, and Wayne Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of New York are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26336 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4347-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Kansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4347-DR), dated November 7, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The change occurred on November 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Constance C. Johnson-Cage, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of Michael R. Scott as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26345 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111- 23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1753] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before March 7, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1753, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address Boulder County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas Project: 15-08-1362S Preliminary Date: February 16, 2017 City of Lafayette City Hall, 1290 South Public Road, Lafayette, CO 80026. City of Louisville City Hall, 749 Main Street, Louisville, CO 80027. Town of Erie Town Hall, 645 Holbrook Street, Erie, CO 80516. Town of Superior Town Hall, 124 East Coal Creek Drive, Superior, CO 80027. Unincorporated Areas of Boulder County Boulder County Transportation Department, 2525 13th Street, Suite 203, Boulder, CO 80304. City and County of Broomfield, Colorado Project: 15-08-1362S Preliminary Date: February 16, 2017 City and County of Broomfield City Hall, Engineering Department, 1 DesCombes Drive, Broomfield, CO 80020. Floyd County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas Project: 13-04-8403S Preliminary Date: February 14, 2017 City of Rome City Hall, 601 Broad Street, Rome, GA 30161. Unincorporated Areas of Floyd County Historic Floyd County Courthouse, 4 Government Plaza, Rome, GA 30161. Forsyth County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas Project: 13-04-8403S Preliminary Date: February 14, 2017 Unincorporated Areas of Forsyth County Forsyth County Administrative Building, 110 East Main Street, Suite 120, Cumming, GA 30040. Paulding County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas Project: 13-04-8403S Preliminary Date: February 14, 2017 City of Dallas City Hall, 129 East Memorial Drive, Dallas, GA 30132. Unincorporated Areas of Paulding County Paulding County Development Division, 240 Constitution Boulevard, Dallas, GA 30132. Polk County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas Project: 13-04-8403S Preliminary Date: February 14, 2017 and June 15, 2017 City of Rockmart City Hall, 316 North Piedmont Avenue, Building 100, Rockmart, GA 30153. Unincorporated Areas Polk County Polk County Building Inspection Department, 144 West Avenue, Suite C, Cedartown, GA 30125. Missoula County, Montana and Incorporated Areas Project: 15-08-1417S Preliminary Date: March 30, 2017 Unincorporated Areas of Missoula County Missoula County Community and Planning Services Department, 323 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802. Richland County, Montana and Incorporated Areas Project: 17-08-0127S Preliminary Date: February 22, 2017 Unincorporated Areas of Richland County Richland County Courthouse, 201 West Main Street, Sidney, MT 59270. Austin County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 14-06-1382S Preliminary Date: January 30, 2017 City of Bellville City Hall, 30 South Holland Street, Bellville, TX 77418. City of Industry City Hall, 725 Main Street, Industry, TX 78944. City of Sealy Planning and Public Works Building, 405 Main Street, Sealy, TX 77474. Town of San Felipe Town Hall, 927 6th Street, San Felipe, TX 77473. Unincorporated Areas of Austin County Austin County Courthouse, 1 East Main Street, Bellville, TX 77418. Fort Bend County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 14-06-1382S Preliminary Date: January 30, 2017 City of Fulshear City Hall, 30603 FM 1093, Fulshear, TX 77441. City of Simonton City Hall, 35011 FM 1093, Simonton, TX 77476. City of Weston Lakes Simonton City Hall, 35011 FM 1093, Simonton, TX 77476. Unincorporated Areas of Fort Bend County Fort Bend County Drainage District, 1124 Blume Road, Rosenberg, TX 77471. Village of Fairchilds Fairchild Volunteer Fire Department, 8713 Fairchild Road, Richmond, TX 77469. Village of Pleak Pleak Village Hall, 6621 FM 2218 South, Richmond, TX 77469. Fort Bend County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 14-06-1988S Preliminary Date: January 30, 2017 City of Houston Public Works and Engineering Department, Houston Permitting Center, 1002 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Houston, TX 77002. Unincorporated Areas of Fort Bend County Fort Bend County Drainage District, 1124 Blume Road, Rosenberg, TX 77471. Harris County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 14-06-1988S Preliminary Date: January 30, 2017 City of Houston Public Works and Engineering Department, Houston Permitting Center, 1002 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Houston, TX 77002. City of Missouri City City Hall, 1522 Texas Parkway, Missouri City, TX 77489. City of South Houston City Hall, 1018 Dallas Street, South Houston, TX 77587. Unincorporated Areas of Harris County Harris County Engineering Department, Permit Division, 10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77092. Waller County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 14-06-1382S Preliminary Date: January 30, 2017 City of Hempstead City Hall, 1125 Austin Street, Hempstead, TX 77445. City of Prairie View City Hall, 44500 Business Highway 290, Prairie View, TX 77446. Unincorporated Areas of Waller County Waller County Courthouse, 836 Austin Street, Hempstead, TX 77445. Washington County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 14-06-1382S Preliminary Date: January 30, 2017 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County Washington County Courthouse Annex, 105 West Main Street, Suite 100, Brenham, TX 77833.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26341 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1759] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before March 7, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1759, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska and the Cities of Ketchikan and Saxman Project: 14-10-0603S Preliminary Date: May 5, 2017 Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Planning and Community Development Office, 1900 1st Avenue, Suite 126, Ketchikan, AK 99901. Montgomery County, Kansas and Incorporated Areas Project: 15-07-2323S Preliminary Date: January 31, 2017 City of Caney City Hall, 100 West 4th Aveune, Caney, KS 67333. City of Cherryvale City Hall, 123 West Main Street, Cherryvale, KS 67335. City of Coffeyville Engineering Department, 102 West 7th Street, Coffeyville, KS 67337. City of Dearing City Clerk's Office, 306 South Independence Avenue, Dearing, KS 67340. City of Elk City City Hall, 114 North Montgomery Avenue, Elk City, KS 67344. City of Havana Montgomery County Judicial Center, 300 East Main Street, Lower Level, Independence, KS 67301. City of Independence Montgomery County Judicial Center, 300 East Main Street, Lower Level, Independence, KS 67301. City of Liberty Montgomery County Judicial Center, 300 East Main Street, Lower Level, Independence, KS 67301. City of Tyro City of Tyro Clerk's Office, 1655 County Road 2700, Caney, KS 67333. Unincorporated Areas of Montgomery County Montgomery County Judicial Center, 300 East Main Street, Lower Level, Independence, KS 67301. Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas Project: 15-07-0334S Preliminary Date: January 23, 2017 City of Bloomsdale City Hall, 80 Mill Hill Road, Bloomsdale, MO 63627. City of Ste. Genevieve City Hall, 165 South 4th Street, Ste. Genevieve, MO 63670. City of St. Mary City Hall, 782 3rd Street, St. Mary, MO 63673. Unincorporated Areas of Ste. Genevieve County Ste. Genevieve County Courthouse, 55 South 3rd Street, Ste. Genevieve, MO 63670. Marion County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas Project: 17-10-0516S Preliminary Date: February 14, 2017 City of Salem City Hall, 555 Liberty Street Southeast, Room 325, Salem, OR 97301. City of Turner City Hall, 5255 Chicago Street Southeast, Turner, OR 97392. Unincorporated Areas of Marion County 555 Court Street Northeast, Salem, OR 97301.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26340 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

    DATES:

    Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 2, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case
  • No.
  • Chief executive officer of community Community map
  • repository
  • Date of
  • modification
  • Community
  • No.
  • Alabama: Etowah (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of Gadsden (16-04-6644P) The Honorable Sherman Guyton, Mayor, City of Gadsden, P.O. Box 267, Gadsden, AL 35902 City Hall, 90 Broad Street, Gadsden, AL 35901 Oct. 06, 2017 010080 Morgan (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of Hartselle (16-04-8327P) The Honorable Randy Garrison, Mayor, City of Hartselle, 200 Sparkman Street Northwest, Hartselle, AL 35640 City Hall, 200 Sparkman Street Northwest, Hartselle, AL 35640 Sep. 21, 2017 010178 Washington (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) Unincorporated areas of Washington County (17-04-3238P) The Honorable Allen Bailey, Chairman, Washington County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 146, Chatom, AL 36518 Engineering Department, 45 Court Street, Chatom, AL 36518 Sep. 25, 2017 010302 Colorado: Adams (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) Unincorporated areas of Adams County (17-08-0045P) The Honorable Eva J. Henry, Chair, Adams County Board of Commissioners, 4430 South Adams County Parkway, 5th Floor, Suite C5000A, Brighton, CO 80601 Adams County Community and Economic Development Department, 4430 South Adams County Parkway, 1st Floor, Suite W2000, Brighton, CO 80601 Sep. 22, 2017 080001 Arapahoe (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of Centennial (17-08-0306P) The Honorable Cathy Noon, Mayor, City of Centennial, 13133 East Arapahoe Road, Centennial, CO 80112 Public Works Department, 13133 East Arapahoe Road, Centennial, CO 80112 Oct. 6, 2017 080315 Boulder (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Town of Superior (17-08-0088P) The Honorable Clint Folsom, Mayor, Town of Superior, 124 East Coal Creek Drive, Superior, CO 80027 Town Hall, 124 East Coal Creek Drive, Superior, CO 80027 Sep. 28, 2017 080203 Denver (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City and County of Denver (17-08-0542P) The Honorable Michael Hancock, Mayor, City and County of Denver, 1437 Bannock Street, Room 350, Denver, CO 80202 Department of Public Works, 201 West Colfax Avenue, Denver, CO 80202 Sep. 29, 2017 080046 Gilpin (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of Black Hawk (17-08-0165P) The Honorable David Spellman, Mayor, City of Black Hawk, P.O. Box 17, Black Hawk, CO 80422 Planning and Development Department, 211 Church Street, Black Hawk, CO 80422 Oct. 6, 2017 080076 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of Arvada (17-08-0045P) The Honorable Marc Williams, Mayor, City of Arvada, 8101 Ralston Road, P.O. Box 8101, Arvada, CO 80001 Engineering Department, 8101 Ralston Road, Arvada, CO 80001 Sep. 22, 2017 085072 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County (17-08-0045P) The Honorable Libby Szabo, Chair, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, CO 80419 Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Department, 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, CO 80419 Sep. 22, 2017 080087 Connecticut: New London (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Town of Groton (17-01-0859P) Mr. Mark R. Oefinger, Manager, Town of Groton, 45 Fort Hill Road, Groton, CT 06340 Town Hall, 45 Fort Hill Road, Groton, CT 06340 Sep. 15, 2017 090097 New London (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Town of Ledyard (17-01-0859P) The Honorable Fred Allyn III, Mayor, Town of Ledyard, 741 Colonel Ledyard Highway, Ledyard, CT 06339 Town Hall, 741 Colonel Ledyard Highway, Ledyard, CT 06339 Sep. 15, 2017 090157 Florida: Bay (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) Unincorporated areas of Bay County (17-04-2939P) The Honorable William T. Dozier, Chairman, Bay County Board of Commissioners, 840 West 11th Street, Panama City, FL 32401 Bay County Planning and Zoning Department, 840 West 11th Street, Panama City, FL 32401 Sep. 20, 2017 120004 Maryland: Montgomery (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City of Rockville (17-03-0445P) Mr. Robert DiSpirito, Manager, City of Rockville, 111 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850 Department of Public Works, 111 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850 Sep. 22, 2017 240051 Massachusetts: Worcester (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Town of Northbridge (16-01-2019P) The Honorable James R. Marzec, Chairman, Town of Northbridge Board of Selectmen, 7 Main Street, Whitinsville, MA 01588 Town Hall, 7 Main Street, Whitinsville, MA 01588 Sep. 20, 2017 250322 Worcester (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Town of Sutton (16-01-2019P) The Honorable John L. Hebert, Chairman, Town of Sutton Board of Selectmen, 4 Uxbridge Road, Sutton, MA 01590 Town Hall, 4 Uxbridge Road, Sutton, MA 01590 Sep. 20, 2017 250338 North Carolina: Onslow (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Town of North Topsail Beach (17-04-2762P) The Honorable Fred J. Burns, Mayor, Town of North Topsail Beach, 2008 Loggerhead Court, North Topsail Beach, NC 28460 Planning Department, 2008 Loggerhead Court, North Topsail Beach, NC 28460 Oct. 6, 2017 370466 Person (FEMA Docket No.: B-1740) Unincorporated Areas of Person County (17-04-0451P) The Honorable Tracey L. Kendrick, Chairman, Person County Board of Commissioners, 304 South Morgan Street, Roxboro, NC 27573 Person County Planning and Zoning Department, 325 South Morgan Street, Roxboro, NC 27573 Sep. 28, 2017 370346 Pitt (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City of Greenville (17-04-3225P) The Honorable Kandie D. Smith, Mayor, City of Greenville, P.O. Box 7207, Greenville, NC 27835 City Hall, 200 West 5th Street, Greenville, NC 27834 Oct. 2, 2017 370191 Wake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Town of Apex (17-04-3427P) The Honorable Lance Olive, Mayor, Town of Apex, P.O. Box 250, Apex, NC 27502 Engineering Department, 73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC 27502 Oct. 2, 2017 370467 North Dakota: Morton (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of Mandan (17-08-0166P) The Honorable Tim Helbling, Mayor, City of Mandan, 203 2nd Avenue Northwest, Mandan, ND 58554 City Hall, 203 2nd Avenue Northwest, Mandan, ND 58554 Sep. 18, 2017 380072 Oklahoma: Oklahoma (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of Midwest City (17-06-0756P) The Honorable Matthew Dukes, Mayor, City of Midwest City, 100 North Midwest Boulevard, Midwest City, OK 73110 Engineering Department, 100 North Midwest Boulevard, Midwest City, OK 73110 Oct. 16, 2017 400405 Tulsa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1727) City of Tulsa (17-06-0933P) The Honorable G.T. Bynum, Mayor, City of Tulsa, 175 East 2nd Street, Tulsa, OK 74103 Engineering Services Department, 2317 South Jackson Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74107 Sep. 11, 2017 405381 Pennsylvania: Allegheny (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) Township of North Fayette (16-03-2516P) The Honorable James Morosetti, Chairman, Township of North Fayette Board of Supervisors, 400 North Branch Road, Oakdale, PA 15071 Community Development Department, 400 North Branch Road, Oakdale, PA 15071 Sep. 11, 2017 421085 Chester (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Township of West Pikeland (17-03-0003P) Mr. Jim Wendelgass, Manager, Township of West Pikeland, 1645 Art School Road, Chester Springs, PA 19425 Township Building, 1645 Art School Road, Chester Springs, PA 19425. Oct. 4, 2017 421151 Chester (FEMA Docket No.: B-1725) Township of West Whiteland (16-03-1541P) Ms. Mimi Gleason, Manager, Township of West Whiteland, 101 Commerce Drive, Exton, PA 19341 Township Hall, 101 Commerce Drive, Exton, PA 19341 Oct. 2, 2017 420295 South Dakota: Union (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Unincorporated areas of Union County (16-08-0762P) The Honorable Milton Ustad, Chairman, Union County Board of Commissioners, 209 East Main Street, Elk Point, SD 57025 Union County Planning and Zoning Department, 209 East Main Street, Elk Point, SD 57025 Sep. 29, 2017 460242 Texas: Bexar (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City of Converse (17-06-1168P) The Honorable Al Suarez, Mayor, City of Converse, 403 South Seguin Road, Converse, TX 78109 City Hall, 403 South Seguin Road, Converse, TX 78109 Oct. 2, 2017 480038 Bexar (FEMA Docket No.: B-1727) City of Fair Oaks Ranch (16-06-3504P) The Honorable Garry Manitzas, Mayor, City of Fair Oaks Ranch, 7286 Dietz Elkhorn Road, Fair Oaks Ranch, TX 78015 Public Works Department, 7286 Dietz Elkhorn Road, Fair Oaks Ranch, TX 78015 Aug. 28, 2017 481644 Bexar (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of San Antonio (16-06-2628P) The Honorable Ivy R. Taylor, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 Sep. 21, 2017 480045 Bexar (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City of San Antonio (16-06-4428P) The Honorable Ivy R. Taylor, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 Oct. 2, 2017 480045 Bexar (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of San Antonio (17-06-1346P) The Honorable Ivy R. Taylor, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 Sep. 29, 2017 480045 Collin (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City of McKinney (17-06-0438P) The Honorable Brian Loughmiller, Mayor, City of McKinney, P.O. Box 517, McKinney, TX 75070 Engineering Department, 221 North Tennessee Street, McKinney, TX 75069 Oct. 2, 2017 480135 Collin (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Unincorporated areas of Collin County (17-06-0438P) The Honorable Keith Self, Collin County Judge, 2300 Bloomdale Road, Suite 4192, McKinney, TX 75071 Collin County Engineering Department, 4690 Community Avenue, Suite 200, McKinney, TX 75071 Oct. 2, 2017 480130 Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1727) City of Irving (16-06-4337P) The Honorable Beth Van Duyne, Mayor, City of Irving, 825 West Irving Boulevard, Irving, TX 75060 Capital Improvement Program Department, Engineering Section, 825 West Irving Boulevard, Irving, TX 75060 Sep. 11, 2017 480180 Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City of Lancaster (17-06-2357P) The Honorable Marcus E. Knight, Mayor, City of Lancaster, P.O. Box 940, Lancaster, TX 75146 City Hall, 700 East Main Street, Lancaster, TX 75146 Sep. 21, 2017 480182 Dallas and Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of Grapevine (17-06-1387P) The Honorable William D. Tate, Mayor, City of Grapevine, P. O. Box 95104, Grapevine, TX 76099 City Hall, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, TX 76051 Sep. 14, 2017 480598 Denton (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of The Colony (17-06-0854P) The Honorable Joe McCourry, Mayor, City of The Colony, 6800 Main Street, The Colony, TX 75056 City Hall, 6800 Main Street, The Colony, TX 75056 Sep. 11, 2017 481581 Ellis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City of Midlothian (16-06-3253P) The Honorable Bill Houston, Mayor, City of Midlothian, 104 West Avenue E, Midlothian, TX 76065 Engineering Department, 104 West Avenue E, Midlothian, TX 76065 Sep. 28, 2017 480801 Kendall (FEMA Docket No.: B-1727) Unincorporated areas of Kendall County (16-06-3504P) The Honorable Darrel L. Lux, Kendall County Judge, 201 East San Antonio Avenue, Suite 122, Boerne, TX 78006 Kendall County Engineering Department, 201 East San Antonio Avenue, Suite 101, Boerne, TX 78006 Aug. 28, 2017 480417 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) Town of Flower Mound (17-06-1387P) The Honorable Thomas Hayden, Mayor, Town of Flower Mound, 2121 Cross Timbers Road, Flower Mound, TX 75028 Engineering Department, 2121 Cross Timbers Road, Flower Mound, TX 75028 Sep. 14, 2017 480777 Travis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) City of Austin (16-06-3748P) The Honorable Steve Adler, Mayor, City of Austin, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 1 Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road, 12th Floor, Austin, TX 78703 Sep. 11, 2017 480624 Travis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City of Austin (17-06-0072P) The Honorable Steve Adler, Mayor, City of Austin, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 Watershed Protection Department, 505 Barton Springs Road, Austin, TX 78704 Sep. 18, 2017 480624 Travis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Unincorporated areas of Travis County (17-06-0072P) The Honorable Sarah Eckhardt, Travis County Judge, P.O. Box 1748, Austin, TX 78767 Transportation and Natural Resources Department, 700 Lavaca Street, Suite 540, Austin, TX 78701 Sep. 18, 2017 481026 Utah: Kane (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Unincorporated areas of Kane County (17-08-0684P) The Honorable Dirk Clayson, Chairman, Kane County Commission, 76 North Main Street, Kanab, UT 84741 Kane County Courthouse, 76 North Main Street, Kanab, UT 84741 Sep. 22, 2017 490083 Salt Lake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) City of Draper (17-08-0291P) The Honorable Troy K. Walker, Mayor, City of Draper, 1020 East Pioneer Road, Draper, UT 84020 City Hall, 1020 East Pioneer Road, Draper, UT 84020 Oct. 2, 2017 490244 Virginia: Loudoun (FEMA Docket No.: B-1733) Unincorporated areas of Loudoun County (17-03-1055P) The Honorable Phyllis J. Randall, Chair, Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, P.O. Box 7000, Leesburg, VA 20177 Loudoun County Department of Building and Development, 1 Harrison Street, Leesburg, VA 20177 Oct. 6, 2017 510099 Prince William (FEMA Docket No.: B-1735) Unincorporated areas of Prince William County (17-03-0300P) Mr. Christopher E. Martino, Prince William County Executive, 1 County Complex Court, Woodbridge, VA 22192 Prince William County Department of Public Works, 5 County Complex Court, Woodbridge, VA 22192 Sep. 21, 2017 510119
    [FR Doc. 2017-26367 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0125] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Customer Profile Management System-IDENTity Verification Tool (CPMS-IVT) AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 8, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number [1615-0125] in the subject line.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2017, at 82 FR 43398, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive one comment in connection with the 60-day notice.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2011-0008 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Customer Profile Management System-IDENTity Verification Tool (CPMS-IVT).

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: M-1061; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Individuals or households. Respondents subject to this information collection are all individuals who are appearing at a USCIS District/Field Office for a required interview in connection with their request for an immigration or naturalization benefit, or in order to receive evidence of an immigration benefit such as a temporary travel document, parole authorization, temporary extension of a I-90, or temporary I-551 stamp in a passport or on a Form I-94 evidencing lawful permanent residence.

    Respondents will be required to have their photograph and fingerprints taken at the USCIS District/Field Office to be inputted into the Customer Profile Management System-IDENTity Verification Tool (CPMS-IVT). The only U.S. citizen respondents subject to enrollment in CPMS-IVT are petitioners filing orphan or adoption petitions (Forms I-600/600A) and U.S. citizen petitioners of family-based petitions required to appear at an ASC for biometric capture for purposes of complying with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 1996, Public Law 109-248.

    Use of CPMS-IVT will apply for in-person appearances at a USCIS District/Field Office related to the following applications, petitions, or requests: I-90 (1615-0082) Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, I-130 (1615-0012) Petition for Alien Relative, I-131 (1615-0013) Application for Travel Document, I-485 (1615-0023) Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, I-600 (1615-0028) Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative, I-600A (1615-0028) Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition, I-687 (1615-0090), Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, I-698 (1615-0035) Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Pub. L. 99-603), I-751 (1615-0038) Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence, I-821D (1615-0124) Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, I-829 (1615-0045) Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions, N-400 (1615-0052) Application for Naturalization.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection M-1061 is 1,644,385 and the estimated hour burden per response is .083 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 272,968 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $0. Any cost burden associated with this collection of information is captured as a part of the forms that require this activity to take place.

    Dated: November 29, 2017. Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26311 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-ES-2017-N145; FXES11130400000EA-123-FF04EF1000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of a Proposed Amendment to a Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Scrub-Jay, Manatee and Hardee Counties, FL AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (Applicant) for amendment of incidental take permit (ITP) number TE236128-1 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, in Manatee and Hardee Counties, Florida. We request public comments on the application and accompanying proposed amended habitat conservation plan (HCP) as well as on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments or request copies of the application, HCP, environmental action statement, or low-effect screening form, by any one of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Use “Attn: Permit number TE236128-2” as your subject line.

    Fax: Field Supervisor, (904) 731-3191, Attn: Permit number TE236128-2.

    U.S. Mail: Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, Attn: Permit number TE236128-2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256.

    In-person: You may deliver comments during regular business hours at the office address listed above under U.S. Mail or inspect the application, HCP, environmental action statement, or low-effect screening form by appointment during normal business hours at the same address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731-3121; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 9 of the ESA and our implementing Federal regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 17 prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). However, under limited circumstances, we issue permits to authorize incidental take—i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.

    Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. The ESA's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.

    Applicant's Proposal

    Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, is requesting amendment to existing incidental take permit number TE236128-1, which was issued on May 18, 2012, and made available via the Federal Register on February 28, 2012 (77 FR 12074). Permit number TE236128-1 authorized the take of approximately 75 acres (ac) of occupied Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) habitat incidental to land clearing and phosphate mining and of no more than three eastern indigo snakes (Drymarchon corais couperi) within each 5-year period throughout the 41-year-long duration of the permit within the 4,345-ac project area located on parcel #45400059, within sections 13, 22-27, and 34, Township 34 South, Range 22 East, Manatee County, Florida. The requested amendment is to expand the area in which eastern indigo snakes may be incidentally taken to include an additional 900 acres located in sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30 of Township 34 South, Range 23 East, in western Hardee County adjacent to the Manatee County parcel. No increase in the amount of take for the eastern indigo snake or the Florida scrub-jay has been requested. The HCP describes the measures the Applicant proposes to undertake to mitigate and minimize the effects of the project on the threatened Florida scrub-jay and threatened eastern indigo snake.

    Our Preliminary Determination

    We have determined that the Applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we have determined that the ITP for this project would be “low effect” and qualify as a categorically excluded under NEPA, as provided by 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.210. A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the ITP complies with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the amended ITP. If the requirements are met, we will issue ITP number TE236128-2 to the applicant.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, or associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods listed above in ADDRESSES.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA and NEPA regulation 40 CFR 1506.6.

    Jay B. Herrington, Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, Southeast Region.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26360 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCOS09000-L16100000-DR0000-18X] Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meetings for the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory Council, Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA) Advisory Council (Council) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on December 20, 2017, from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and January 8, 2018, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Any adjustments to these meetings will be advertised on the Dominguez-Escalante NCA Resource Management Plan (RMP) Web site: http://1.usa.gov/1qKkMVi.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held on December 20, 2017, at the Mesa County Central Services Building, 200 S. Spruce St., Room 40, Grand Junction, CO 81501 and on January 8, 2018, at the Bill Heddles Recreation Center, 530 Gunnison River Drive, Delta, CO 81416.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Collin Ewing, Advisory Council Designated Federal Official, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506. Phone: (970) 244-3049. Email: [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with the resource management plan (RMP) process for the Dominguez-Escalante NCA and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness. Topics of discussion during the meeting may include presentations from BLM staff on implementation of the approved RMP and travel management plan.

    These meetings are open to the public. At the December 20, 2017, meeting there will be public comment periods from 4:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and from 5:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. At the January 8, 2018, meeting there will be a public comment period from 4:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. The public may present written comments to the Council at the meeting. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited at the discretion of the chair.

    Gregory P. Shoop, Acting BLM Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26396 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLORV00000. L10200000. DF0000. LXSSH1050000.18X.HAG 18-0031] Notice of Public Meetings for the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council's Lands With Wilderness Characteristics Subcommittee AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (RAC) Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) Subcommittee will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The Southeast Oregon RAC's LWCSubcommittee will meet via teleconference Wednesday, December 20, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Mountain Time. There will be a public comment period from 3:15 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The LWC subcommittee meeting will be held via teleconference. The telephone conference line number for the meeting is 1-866-524-6456, Participant Code: 608605#.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larisa Bogardus, Public Affairs Officer, 1301 S G Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630; 541-947-6237; [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 15-member Southeast Oregon RAC was chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The RAC members' diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in southeast Oregon. Agenda items include discussing possible management approaches for areas identified by BLM as LWC for a subsequent recommendation to the full Southeast Oregon RAC as part of the Vale and Lakeview Districts' respective Resource Management Plan Amendment(s) process. A final agenda will be posted online at https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/resource-advisory-council/near-you/oregon-washington/southeast-oregon-rac at least one week prior to each teleconference.

    All meetings are open to the public in their entirety. Information to be distributed to the LWC Subcommittee or the Southeast Oregon RAC is requested prior to the start of each meeting.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 1784.4-2.

    Shane DeForest, Vale District Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26390 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-17-058] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    Time and Date:

    December 14, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

    Place:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    Status:

    Open to the public.

    Matters to be Considered:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-865-867 (Third Review)(Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by January 8, 2018.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 4, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26460 Filed 12-5-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-17-059] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    Time and Date:

    December 19, 2017 at 2:30 p.m.

    Place:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    Status:

    Open to the public.

    Matters to be Considered:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1349, 1352, and 1357 (Final) (Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by January 3, 2018.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 4, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26461 Filed 12-5-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collections; Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following renewals of currently approved collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2018 to be assured consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collections to Dawn Wolfgang, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 5080, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Fax No. 703-519-8579; or Email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to the address above or telephone 703-548-2279.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Number: 3133-0138.

    Title: Community Development Revolving Loan Fund—Loan and Grant Programs, 12 CFR part 705.

    Abstract: NCUA's Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF or Fund) was established by Congress (Pub. L. 96-123, November 20, 1979) to stimulate economic development in low-income communities. Part 705 was adopted by the Board under section 130 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1772c-1), which implements the Community Development Credit Union Revolving Loan Fund Transfer Act (Pub. L. 99-609, 100 Stat. 3475 (Nov. 6, 1986)).

    The Fund is used to support credit unions that serve low-income communities by providing loans and technical assistance grants to qualifying institutions. The programs are designed to increase income, ownership, and employment opportunities for low-income residents, and to stimulate economic growth. In addition, the programs provide assistance to improve the quality of services to the community and formulate more effective and efficient operations of credit unions. The information will allow NCUA to assess a credit union's capacity to repay the Funds and/or ensure that the funds are used as intended to benefit the institution and community it serves.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Private Sector: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated No. of Respondents: 450 grant program; 4 loan program.

    Estimated Annual Frequency: Once.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 785 grant program; 14 loan program.

    Estimated Burden Hours per Response: 0.95.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 760.

    Reason for Change: A reduction is attributed to a program change due to the recent consolidation of NCUA informal appeals process under 12 CFR part 746, subpart B. Additionally, adjustments are being made to reflect current application activity under the Fund programs and to include information collection activities that had not been accounted for in the past.

    OMB Number: 3133-0180.

    Title: Liquidity Contingency Funding Plans, 12 CFR 741.12.

    Abstract: The 2008 financial crisis demonstrated the importance of good liquidity risk management to the safety and soundness of financial institutions. In conjunction with the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), adopted the Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management in March of 2010.

    In October 2013, to clarify NCUA's expectation on the Interagency Policy Statement and to reduce the regulatory burden on small credit unions, NCUA codified the requirements for Liquidity and Contingency Funding Plans as § 741.12. The rule establishes a three tier framework for federally insured credit unions, based on asset size. Federally insured credit union with assets under $50 million must maintain a basic policy, federally insured credit unions with assets of $50 million and over must maintain a contingency funding plan, and federally insured credit unions with assets over $250 million must maintain a contingency funding plan and establish a federal liquidity contingency source.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Private Sector: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated No. of Respondents: 5,696.

    Estimated Annual Frequency: 1.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 5,696.

    Estimated Burden Hours per Response: 0.78.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,425.

    Reason for Change: A reduction in burden hours is due to an adjustment in the number of credit unions in each category of respondent.

    Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. The public is invited to submit comments concerning: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper execution of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on November 30, 2017.

    Dated: November 30, 2017. Dawn D. Wolfgang, NCUA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26361 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of permits issued.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 26, 2017, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit applications received. The permits were issued on December 1, 2017 to:

    1. Jennifer Burns, Permit No. 2018-022 Nadene G. Kennedy, Polar Coordination Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26351 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL OSC Annual Survey AGENCY:

    Office of Special Counsel.

    ACTION:

    Notice for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use of a previously approved information collection (survey). OSC is required by statute to annually conduct the survey and publish the results in OSC's annual report. The OSC Annual Survey consists of four electronic questionnaires. The prior OMB approval, dated April 20, 2017, expired October 31, 2017. OSC is requesting renewed approval for the survey, and we are not making any changes to the previously approved survey. Current and former Federal employees, employee representatives, other Federal agencies, state and local government employees, and the general public are invited to comment on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OSC functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of OSC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections 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.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for OSC, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; or by email via: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth Hendricks, Clerk of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, by telephone at (202) 804-7000, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OSC is an independent agency responsible for among other things, (1) investigation of allegations of prohibited personnel practices defined by law at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b), protection of whistleblowers, and certain other illegal employment practices under titles 5 and 38 of the U.S. Code, affecting current or former Federal employees or applicants for employment, and covered state and local government employees; and (2) the interpretation and enforcement of Hatch Act provisions on political activity in chapters 15 and 73 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. OSC is required to conduct an annual survey of individuals who seek its assistance. Section 13 of Public Law 103-424 (1994), codified at 5 U.S.C. 1212 note, states, in part: “[T]he survey shall—(1) determine if the individual seeking assistance was fully apprised of their rights; (2) determine whether the individual was successful either at the Office of Special Counsel or the Merit Systems Protection Board; and (3) determine if the individual, whether successful or not, was satisfied with the treatment received from the Office of Special Counsel.” The same section also requires OSC to publish the survey's results in OSC's annual report to Congress. Copies of prior years' annual reports are available on OSC's Web site, at https://osc.gov/Pages/Resources-ReportsAndInfo.aspx or by calling OSC at (202) 804-7000. The prior OSC Annual Survey, OMB Control Number 3255-0003, expired on October 31, 2017. OSC is requesting renewed approval and reinstatement without change of this previously approved collection of information. As with the prior approved survey, this survey will be hosted by Survey Monkey (https://www.surveymonkey.com).

    The survey questionnaires are available for review on line at https://osc.gov/Resources/Survey%20Samples%202017.pdf or by calling OSC at (202) 804-7000.

    Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection of information that expired on October 31, 2017.

    Affected Public: Filers (or their representatives) seeking OSC services through: (1) Complaints alleging prohibited personnel practice or Hatch Act violations; or (2) disclosures of information alleging violation of law, rule, or regulation.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Estimated Annual Number of Survey Form Respondents: 500.

    Frequency of Survey Form Use: Annual.

    Estimated Average Amount of Time for a Person to Respond to Survey: 12 minutes.

    Estimated Annual Survey Burden: 100 hours.

    OSC will use the questionnaires to survey filers, whose matters OSC closed or otherwise resolved during the prior fiscal year, on their experience at OSC. Specifically, the survey asks questions relating to whether the respondent was: (1) Apprised of his or her rights; (2) successful at the OSC or at the Merit Systems Protection Board; and (3) satisfied with the treatment received at the OSC.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Bruce Gipe, Chief Operating Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26322 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7405-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2018-40 and CP2018-70; MC2018-41 and CP2018-71] New Postal Products AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: December 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents

    I. Introduction

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    I. Introduction

    The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

    Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

    The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    1. Docket No(s).: MC2018-40 and CP2018-70; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 30 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: December 1, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: December 11, 2017.

    2. Docket No(s).: MC2018-41 and CP2018-71; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 381 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: December 1, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: December 11, 2017.

    This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26402 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 1, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 381 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-41, CP2018-71.

    Elizabeth A. Reed, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26348 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 1, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 30 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-40, CP2018-70.

    Elizabeth A. Reed, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26347 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 2018 Railroad Experience Rating Proclamations, Monthly Compensation Base and Other Determinations AGENCY:

    Railroad Retirement Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) hereby publishes its notice for calendar year 2018 of account balances, factors used in calculating experience-based employer contribution rates, computation of amounts related to the monthly compensation base, and the maximum daily benefit rate for days of unemployment or sickness.

    DATES:

    The balance in notice (1) and the determinations made in notices (3) through (7) are based on data as of June 30, 2017. The balance in notice (2) is based on data as of September 30, 2017. The determinations made in notices (5) through (7) apply to the calculation, under section 8(a)(1)(C) of the Act, of employer contribution rates for 2018. The determinations made in notices (8) through (11) are effective January 1, 2018. The determination made in notice (12) is effective for registration periods beginning after June 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Rizzo, Bureau of the Actuary and Research, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone (312) 751-4771.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The RRB is required by section 8(c)(1) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(1)) as amended by Public Law 100-647, to proclaim by October 15 of each year certain system-wide factors used in calculating experience-based employer contribution rates for the following year. The RRB is further required by section 8(c)(2) of the Act (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(2)) to publish the amounts so determined and proclaimed. The RRB is required by section 12(r)(3) of the Act (45 U.S.C. 362(r)(3)) to publish by December 11, 2017, the computation of the calendar year 2018 monthly compensation base (section 1(i) of the Act) and amounts described in sections 1(k), 2(c), 3 and 4(a-2)(i)(A) of the Act which are related to changes in the monthly compensation base. Also, the RRB is required to publish, by June 11, 2018, the maximum daily benefit rate under section 2(a)(3) of the Act for days of unemployment and days of sickness in registration periods beginning after June 30, 2018. Pursuant to section 8(c)(2) and section 12(r)(3) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(2) and 45 U.S.C. 362(r)(3), respectively), the Board gives notice of the following:

    1. The balance to the credit of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance (RUI) Account, as of June 30, 2017, is $97,732,177.41;

    2. The September 30, 2017, balance of any new loans to the RUI Account, including accrued interest, is zero;

    3. The system compensation base is $4,042,278,849.27 as of June 30, 2017;

    4. The cumulative system unallocated charge balance is ($421,642,171.99) as of June 30, 2017;

    5. The pooled credit ratio for calendar year 2018 is zero;

    6. The pooled charged ratio for calendar year 2018 is zero;

    7. The surcharge rate for calendar year 2018 is 1.5 percent;

    8. The monthly compensation base under section 1(i) of the Act is $1,560 for months in calendar year 2018;

    9. The amount described in sections 1(k) and 3 of the Act as “2.5 times the monthly compensation base” is $3,900.00 for base year (calendar year) 2018;

    10. The amount described in section 4(a-2)(i)(A) of the Act as “2.5 times the monthly compensation base” is $3,900.00 with respect to disqualifications ending in calendar year 2018;

    11. The amount described in section 2(c) of the Act as “an amount that bears the same ratio to $775 as the monthly compensation base for that year as computed under section 1(i) of this Act bears to $600” is $2,015 for months in calendar year 2018;

    12. The maximum daily benefit rate under section 2(a)(3) of the Act is $77 with respect to days of unemployment and days of sickness in registration periods beginning after June 30, 2018.

    Surcharge Rate

    A surcharge is added in the calculation of each employer's contribution rate, subject to the applicable maximum rate, for a calendar year whenever the balance to the credit of the RUI Account on the preceding June 30 is less than the greater of $100 million or the amount that bears the same ratio to $100 million as the system compensation base for that June 30 bears to the system compensation base as of June 30, 1991. If the RUI Account balance is less than $100 million (as indexed), but at least $50 million (as indexed), the surcharge will be 1.5 percent. If the RUI Account balance is less than $50 million (as indexed), but greater than zero, the surcharge will be 2.5 percent. The maximum surcharge of 3.5 percent applies if the RUI Account balance is less than zero.

    The ratio of the June 30, 2017 system compensation base of $4,042,278,849.27 to the June 30, 1991 system compensation base of $2,763,287,237.04 is 1.46285149. Multiplying 1.46285149 by $100 million yields $146,285,149.00. Multiplying $50 million by 1.46285149 produces $73,142,574.50. The Account balance on June 30, 2017, was $97,732,177.41. Accordingly, the surcharge rate for calendar year 2018 is 1.5 percent.

    Monthly Compensation Base

    For years after 1988, section 1(i) of the Act contains a formula for determining the monthly compensation base. Under the prescribed formula, the monthly compensation base increases by approximately two-thirds of the cumulative growth in average national wages since 1984. The monthly compensation base for months in calendar year 2018 shall be equal to the greater of (a) $600 or (b) $600 [1 + {(A−37,800)/56,700}], where A equals the amount of the applicable base with respect to tier 1 taxes for 2018 under section 3231(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Section 1(i) further provides that if the amount so determined is not a multiple of $5, it shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $5.

    Using the calendar year 2018 tier 1 tax base of $128,400 for A above produces the amount of $1,558.73, which must then be rounded to $1,560. Accordingly, the monthly compensation base is determined to be $1,560 for months in calendar year 2018.

    Amounts Related to Changes in Monthly Compensation Base

    For years after 1988, sections 1(k), 3, 4(a-2)(i)(A) and 2(c) of the Act contain formulas for determining amounts related to the monthly compensation base.

    Under section 1(k), remuneration earned from employment covered under the Act cannot be considered subsidiary remuneration if the employee's base year compensation is less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in such base year. Under section 3, an employee shall be a “qualified employee” if his/her base year compensation is not less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in such base year. Under section 4(a-2)(i)(A), an employee who leaves work voluntarily without good cause is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits until he has been paid compensation of not less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in the calendar year in which the disqualification ends.

    Multiplying 2.5 by the calendar year 2018 monthly compensation base of $1,560 produces $3,900.00. Accordingly, the amount determined under sections 1(k), 3 and 4(a-2)(i)(A) is $3,900.00 for calendar year 2018.

    Under section 2(c), the maximum amount of normal benefits paid for days of unemployment within a benefit year and the maximum amount of normal benefits paid for days of sickness within a benefit year shall not exceed an employee's compensation in the base year. In determining an employee's base year compensation, any money remuneration in a month not in excess of an amount that bears the same ratio to $775 as the monthly compensation base for that year bears to $600 shall be taken into account. The calendar year 2018 monthly compensation base is $1,560. The ratio of $1,560 to $600 is 2.60000000. Multiplying 2.60000000 by $775 produces $2,015. Accordingly, the amount determined under section 2(c) is $2,015 for months in calendar year 2018.

    Maximum Daily Benefit Rate

    Section 2(a)(3) contains a formula for determining the maximum daily benefit rate for registration periods beginning after June 30, 1989, and after each June 30 thereafter. Legislation enacted on October 9, 1996, revised the formula for indexing maximum daily benefit rates. Under the prescribed formula, the maximum daily benefit rate increases by approximately two-thirds of the cumulative growth in average national wages since 1984. The maximum daily benefit rate for registration periods beginning after June 30, 2018, shall be equal to 5 percent of the monthly compensation base for the base year immediately preceding the beginning of the benefit year. Section 2(a)(3) further provides that if the amount so computed is not a multiple of $1, it shall be rounded down to the nearest multiple of $1.

    The calendar year 2017 monthly compensation base is $1,545. Multiplying $1,545 by 0.05 yields $77.25. Accordingly, the maximum daily benefit rate for days of unemployment and days of sickness beginning in registration periods after June 30, 2018, is determined to be $77.

    By Authority of the Board.

    Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26430 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34- 82196; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-064] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Creating an Electronic-Only Order Type December 1, 2017. I. Introduction

    On September 29, 2017, the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to create an electronic-only order type. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017.3 The Commission did not receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81862 (Oct. 12, 2017), 82 FR 48550 (Oct. 18. 2017) (“Notice”).

    II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to create an electronic-only order type. Currently, orders that Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) submit to the Exchange will execute electronically and/or be handled manually on the Exchange floor.4 Under certain conditions specified in the Exchange's rules, certain orders and remaining portions of orders that do not execute electronically are routed to a specified Public Automated Routing (“PAR”) workstation or an Order Management Terminal (“OMT”) on the floor of the Exchange for manual handling.5

    4See id. at 48550.

    5See id. at 48550 and Cboe Options Rules 6.12(a) and 6.12A. According to Cboe Options Rule 6.12A, once an order has been routed to a PAR, the PAR user may, among other options, submit the order for electronic processing, execute the order in open outcry, route the order to an OMT designated by the TPH, or route the order to an away exchange. See Notice, supra note 3, at 48550.

    The Exchange proposes to introduce a new electronic-only order type to allow TPHs to submit orders that will not be subject to any manual handling. Specifically, electronic-only orders will only: (i) Auto-execute, (ii) route to an electronic auction, or (iii) route to the electronic book, and in all cases will cancel back to the TPH that entered the order if Exchange rules would otherwise require the order to be routed to the Exchange floor for manual handling.6

    6 Notice, supra note 3, at 48550.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act 7 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.8 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,9 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    8 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by providing TPHs with a more efficient means to submit to the Exchange instructions to prevent an order from routing to a PAR or OMT on the floor of the Exchange. Currently, a TPH that seeks to avoid manual handling of a specific order and obtain a solely electronic execution must inform its OMT operator or PAR broker of this instruction. The Exchange's new electronic-only order type will avoid the need for a TPH to take this additional step and will allow the TPH to submit such order instructions directly to the Exchange when it submits its order.10 The Commission notes that Cboe Options represents that the new electronic-only order type will not materially change how orders are handled or processed on the Exchange, but rather will streamline how TPHs can indicate their instructions that a particular order avoid manual handling on the Exchange's floor.11 For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the proposal to create an electronic-only order type is consistent with the Act.

    10See Notice, supra note 3, at 48551.

    11See id.

    IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,12 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2017-064) be, and hereby is, approved.

    12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13

    13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-26317 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82193; File No. SR-NSCC-2017-019] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Enhance the Process for Submitting and Accepting ETF Creations and Redemptions December 1, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on November 29, 2017, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the Rules & Procedures (“Rules”) 3 of NSCC to introduce two additional cycles (referred to herein as the “intraday cycle” and the “supplemental cycle”) during which exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) agents 4 could submit creation and redemption instructions, as described in greater detail below. The intraday cycle would span from 12:30 a.m. ET to 2:00 p.m. ET. The supplemental cycle would span from 9:00 p.m. ET to 11:30 p.m. ET. The introduction of the intraday cycle would enable NSCC to receive, on an intraday basis, creation and redemption instructions that are marked as-of a prior trade date. Furthermore, with the introduction of the intraday cycle, NSCC would be able to receive creation and redemption instructions for same-day settlement until the designated cut-off time of 11:30 a.m. ET. The introduction of the supplemental cycle would enable ETF agents to submit any creation and redemption instructions later than the current established cut-off time designated by NSCC of 8:00 p.m. ET. With the introduction of the additional cycles, NSCC would also revise the current input file and output files to include additional information, such as a reversal/correction indicator and the time of the transaction, as further described below.

    3 Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.

    4 ETF agents are referred to as “Index Receipt Agents” in the Rules. Section 4 of Rule 7 states that, for purposes of the Rules, an Index Receipt Agent shall be a Member which has entered into an Index Receipt Authorization Agreement as required by NSCC from time to time. See Rule 1 and Rule 7, Sec. 4, supra note 3.

    In addition, NSCC proposes to make a technical correction to clarify that next-day settling creation and redemption instructions are no longer processed differently than other instructions when they are submitted to NSCC, as further described below.

    NSCC also proposes to introduce an automated threshold value reasonability check that would pend submissions of creation and redemption instructions on clearing-eligible ETFs that exceed certain thresholds versus the most recent closing price, as further described below.

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    (A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose (i) Current Processes

    Outside of NSCC, ETF sponsors 5 have processes and/or technology platforms that allow them to bilaterally agree to create or redeem ETF shares with ETF authorized participants 6 intraday and these results are recorded by ETF agents on the ETF agents' technology platforms. These processes are not uniformly automated and may involve users manually entering data that is eventually submitted to NSCC within the standardized create-and-redeem input file. As is the case with any manually entered data, there is the risk that incorrectly calculated figures may be entered into the transaction fields. Furthermore, errors made in certain ETF eligibility reference data (e.g., creation unit size) could also result in incorrectly valued contracts if the incorrect ETF eligibility reference data was used to calculate the creation or redemption orders. As such, if there are incorrect values in certain ETF eligibility reference data or if there are incorrect figures in the transaction fields, then NSCC members (“Members”) may be impacted as their Clearing Fund requirement is calculated using these mis-valued transactions.

    5 ETF sponsors are issuers of ETFs.

    6 ETF authorized participants are (1) broker/dealers that have authorized participant agreements with ETF sponsors and/or (2) broker/dealers that are full-service Members pursuant to Rule 2 with an established ETF trading relationship with an ETF agent that is representing the ETF. See Rule 2, supra note 3.

    Currently, there is one cycle during which ETF agents can submit the input file to NSCC. This cycle is known as the primary cycle and it spans from 2:00 p.m. ET until 8:00 p.m. ET. Errors that are made within an ETF sponsor's or ETF agent's processes and subsequently submitted to NSCC each business evening (by the cut-off time designated by NSCC of 8:00 p.m. ET) may pass undetected by NSCC's ETF processes. As a result, the Universal Trade Capture system 7 will record a contract value to settle versus the ETF shares that may be materially different than the value upon which the ETF sponsor and ETF authorized participant had intended to settle. Upon receipt of the order instruction to create and redeem shares each evening, NSCC risk management's systems will calculate a mark-to-market charge for both the ETF agent's and the ETF authorized participant's daily Clearing Fund requirement.8 All debit mark-to-market charges must be satisfied in accordance with the process outlined below.

    7See Rule 7 (Comparison and Trade Recording Operation) and Procedure II (Trade Comparison and Recording Service), supra note 3.

    8 NSCC's Clearing Fund addresses potential Member exposure through a number of risk-based component charges (such as margin) calculated and assessed daily. Each of the component charges collectively constitute a Member's Required Deposit. The objective of the Required Deposit is to mitigate potential losses to NSCC associated with liquidation of the Member's portfolio in the event that NSCC ceases to act for a Member (hereinafter referred to as a “default”). The aggregate of all Members' Required Deposits constitutes the Clearing Fund, which NSCC would be able to access should a defaulting Member's own Required Deposit be insufficient to satisfy losses to NSCC caused by the liquidation of that Member's portfolio.

    Each morning (no later than 7:05 a.m. ET), the daily Clearing Fund requirement is calculated and distributed to Members. Members, including ETF agents and ETF authorized participants, must satisfy their daily Clearing Fund requirement deficits (if any) to NSCC by 10:00 a.m. ET. As described above, if erroneous transactions were submitted to NSCC the previous day, then the daily Clearing Fund requirement deficit (which is due the next morning) may be impacted by these erroneous transactions. The daily Clearing Fund requirement deficit may be impacted because, today, ETF agents can only submit instructions, including any instructions that are intended to correct erroneous instructions, during the primary cycle. In other words, ETF agents currently do not have an opportunity to submit correcting orders to NSCC until the next primary cycle (from 2:00 p.m. ET until 8:00 p.m. ET), which is after the time at which Members must satisfy their daily Clearing Fund requirement deficits. As such, today, a Member that is impacted by a mis-valued creation or redemption order is required to post its Clearing Fund requirement (which would be based on the mis-valued order) to NSCC prior to the point when ETF agents can submit an offsetting instruction to NSCC. This offsetting instruction would otherwise have relieved the Member of such requirement because it would have corrected the mis-valued order.

    (ii) Overview of Proposal

    As described in more detail below, NSCC is proposing to enhance the process for submitting and accepting ETF creations and redemptions. NSCC is proposing to introduce two cycles (the intraday cycle and the supplemental cycle) during which ETF agents would be able to submit creations and redemptions, including as-of instructions, reversals, and corrections.9

    9 An as-of instruction is an instruction that is submitted with a trade date as of an earlier trade date. As-of reversal instructions and as-of corrections are types of as-of instructions. An as-of reversal instruction is an instruction that is submitted with a trade date as of an earlier trade date that reverses an instruction that has already been processed by NSCC. Reversals and corrections are submitted on the same business day as the incorrect instruction whereas as-of reversal instructions and as-of correction instructions are submitted on a business day after the date on which the incorrect instruction was submitted (but they would have the same trade date as the incorrect instruction).

    As described above, the intraday cycle would span from 12:30 a.m. ET to 2:00 p.m. ET. and the supplemental cycle would span from 9:00 p.m. ET to 11:30 p.m. ET. NSCC would inform Members by Important Notice of any changes to the times of any cycle. The introduction of the intraday cycle would enable NSCC, on an intraday basis, to receive creation and redemption instructions that are marked as-of a prior trade date. Furthermore, with the introduction of the intraday cycle, NSCC would be able to receive creation and redemption instructions for same-day settlement until the designated cut-off time of 11:30 a.m. ET. The introduction of the supplemental cycle would enable ETF agents to submit any creation and redemption instructions later than the current established cut-off time designated by NSCC of 8:00 p.m. ET. With the introduction of the additional cycles, NSCC would include additional information, such as a reversal/correction indicator and the time of transaction, within its existing input file and output files (clearing records and reports) identifying submissions processed during the two new cycles. As further described below, the additional cycles proposed herein would provide ETF sponsors and ETF agents with an opportunity and the flexibility to address mis-valued creation and redemption orders prior to the time by which Members would be required to satisfy any daily Clearing Fund requirement deficits.

    In addition, NSCC proposes to make a technical correction to clarify that next-day settling instructions are no longer processed differently than other instructions when they are submitted to NSCC. The purpose of this technical correction is to remove repetitive language regarding next-day settling instructions. NSCC believes that simplifying this provision would help Members better understand the processing of next-day settling creates and redeems as well as enhance accuracy and clarity, as further described below.

    NSCC also proposes to introduce an automated threshold value reasonability check that would pend submissions of creation and redemption instructions on clearing-eligible ETFs that exceed certain thresholds versus the most recent closing price. NSCC believes it would be beneficial for ETF agents to have an opportunity to review and confirm certain potentially mis-valued transactions that have been submitted to NSCC before such transactions are processed by NSCC (i.e., before the potentially mis-valued transactions would be able to have an impact on Members' daily Clearing Fund requirements), as further described below.

    Details regarding the foregoing proposed rule changes are included in sections (iii) to (v) below.

    (iii) Additional Cycles

    Currently, ETF agents are only able to submit ETF creation and redemption instructions in the standardized input file during one cycle (the primary cycle) each day. As described above, NSCC is proposing to add two cycles: (1) The intraday cycle, which would span from 12:30 a.m. ET to 2:00 p.m. ET and (2) the supplemental cycle, which would span from 9:00 p.m. ET to 11:30 p.m. ET. With the introduction of the additional cycles, NSCC would continue to maintain its current deadline of 8:00 p.m. ET for the submission of the input file during the primary cycle on trade date. NSCC believes that maintaining the same deadline that it does today would help ensure that the existing end of day reconciliation processes conducted by ETF agents and ETF authorized participants continue to be conducted in a timely manner and would also help prevent unnecessary delays to the end of day reconciliation processes. Any late instructions that are submitted to NSCC between 8:00 p.m. ET and 9:00 p.m. ET would be held until 9:00 p.m. ET and then processed at 9:00 p.m. ET (during the supplemental cycle). Therefore, upon implementation, NSCC's ETF primary market clearing process could receive any type of creation and redemption instructions (such as reversals, corrections, and as-of instructions) in the standardized input file from ETF agents from 12:30 a.m. ET to 11:30 p.m. ET each business day. Furthermore, Members would have the option, but would not be required, to submit creation and redemption instructions in the standardized input file during the two additional cycles.

    As described above, the introduction of the intraday cycle would enable NSCC to receive, on an intraday basis, creation and redemption instructions that are marked as-of a prior trade date. Furthermore, with the introduction of the intraday cycle, NSCC would be able to receive creation and redemption instructions for same-day settlement until the designated cut-off time of 11:30 a.m. ET. Today, if an ETF agent submits a creation and redemption instruction for same-day settlement during the existing primary cycle to NSCC, it would be rejected because NSCC is unable to process such instructions; there is no functionality today to support this. The cut-off time of 11:30 a.m. ET would align the deadline for same-day settling creation and redemption instructions with the 11:30 a.m. ET deadline for other same-day settling non-ETF activity.10 NSCC believes aligning these deadlines would streamline the processing of same-day settling items for NSCC and its Members. ETF agents and ETF sponsors (and any third party service providers they use) may have to make coding changes in order for an ETF agent to submit a same-day settling instruction, and these potential coding changes would be different than the coding changes related to the enhanced input and output files described below. Under the proposal, NSCC would reject any creation and redemption instructions for same-day settlement that are not received by NSCC by the designated cut-off time instead of assigning them a new settlement date. This would preserve the option to settle such same-day settling creation and redemption instructions outside of NSCC, which is an option that ETF agents currently have.

    10 For example, same-day settling corporate bond trades and transactions in municipal securities are subject to the 11:30 a.m. ET deadline.

    In addition, as described above, the introduction of the supplemental cycle would allow late submissions (i.e., instructions received by NSCC after the designated deadline of 8:00 p.m. ET for the primary cycle) to be processed without delaying the existing ETF agents' and ETF authorized participants' end-of-day reconciliation processes. Furthermore, today, any extensions for the submission of late instructions are done manually. The introduction