Federal Register Vol. 82, No.246,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 246 (December 26, 2017)

Page Range60835-61127
FR Document

82_FR_246
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 61127 - Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy ActPDF
82 FR 61125 - Delegation of Authority Under Sections 506(a)(2)(A) and 652 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961PDF
82 FR 60839 - Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or CorruptionPDF
82 FR 60912 - Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program: Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017PDF
82 FR 60835 - A Federal Strategy To Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical MineralsPDF
82 FR 60929 - Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar DevicesPDF
82 FR 61036 - Fiscal Year 2018 Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2018PDF
82 FR 61028 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 61039 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 61087 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 60906 - Community Right-To-Know; Adopting 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting; Final RulePDF
82 FR 60984 - Production of Confidential Business Information in Pending Litigation; Transfer of Information Claimed or Determined to Potentially Contain Confidential Business Information to the United States Department of Justice and Parties to Certain LitigationPDF
82 FR 60990 - Registration Review; Biopesticide Dockets Opened for Review and CommentPDF
82 FR 60985 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amendments To Terminate UsesPDF
82 FR 60993 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active IngredientsPDF
82 FR 60940 - Alpha-cypermethrin; Proposed Pesticide TolerancePDF
82 FR 60890 - 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl); Tolerance ExemptionPDF
82 FR 60946 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the C&D Recycling Superfund SitePDF
82 FR 60901 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the C&D Recycling Superfund SitePDF
82 FR 60890 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle RefrigerantPDF
82 FR 60873 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin Lines Technology Review and Revision of Flame Attenuation Lines StandardsPDF
82 FR 60872 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Municipal Waste Combustors; Withdrawal of Direct Final RulePDF
82 FR 60872 - Full Withdrawal of Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration UnitsPDF
82 FR 60943 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund SitePDF
82 FR 61015 - Office of the Director; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
82 FR 61015 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 61016 - National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 60921 - Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use); Reopening of the Comment PeriodPDF
82 FR 61002 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 61011 - Waiver of In Vivo Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms Based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 60920 - Zinpro Corp.; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use); Reopening of the Comment PeriodPDF
82 FR 60865 - Medical Devices; Anesthesiology Devices; Classification of the External Negative Pressure Airway AidPDF
82 FR 60951 - Approval of Expanded Subzone Status; BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC; Duncan, South CarolinaPDF
82 FR 60950 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
82 FR 61120 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
82 FR 61121 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
82 FR 61027 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; ArizonaPDF
82 FR 60854 - Special Conditions: Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (LHTEC), CTS800-4AT; 30-Minute All Engines Operating Power RatingPDF
82 FR 61046 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 60995 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 60991 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 60985 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of New MexicoPDF
82 FR 60969 - Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Pacific Coast Groundfish FisheryPDF
82 FR 61020 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records: Understanding Rapid Re-Housing StudyPDF
82 FR 61019 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Moving to Work Research Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 61023 - Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Georgia Tribe of Eastern CherokeePDF
82 FR 60996 - Petition of the Coalition for Fair Port Practices for Rulemaking; Notice of Public Hearing SchedulePDF
82 FR 61000 - Final National Occupational Research Agenda for Cancer, Reproductive, Cardiovascular and Other Chronic Disease Prevention (CRC)PDF
82 FR 60954 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Boost-Back and Landing of Falcon 9 RocketsPDF
82 FR 60972 - Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel (SNAP) and Subcommittee Naval Research Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 60867 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
82 FR 61029 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Experience Rating Report; Extension Without ChangePDF
82 FR 61013 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, Form FDA 2830PDF
82 FR 60974 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, PortsmouthPDF
82 FR 60974 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New MexicoPDF
82 FR 60973 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, NevadaPDF
82 FR 60952 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Intent To Revoke Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in PartPDF
82 FR 60973 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Main Study Recruitment and Field TestPDF
82 FR 61010 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZYKADIAPDF
82 FR 60845 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Rough Service Lamps and Vibration Service LampsPDF
82 FR 61000 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 61030 - Meeting of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiation and Trade PolicyPDF
82 FR 61028 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
82 FR 61056 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 60995 - Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change The Community of LicensePDF
82 FR 60967 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21386PDF
82 FR 60968 - Marine Mammals and Endangered SpeciesPDF
82 FR 60978 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-505 and FERC-512); Consolidated Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
82 FR 60983 - Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
82 FR 60976 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 60984 - Wells Rural Electric Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental AssessmentPDF
82 FR 60980 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725F); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
82 FR 60975 - Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-725y), Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
82 FR 60976 - Notice of Revocation of Market-Based Rate TariffPDF
82 FR 60981 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Line 8000 Replacement Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
82 FR 60977 - Wallowa Resources Community Solutions Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
82 FR 60948 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 60971 - Army Science Board Plenary MeetingPDF
82 FR 60951 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 61015 - Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees From the Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, To Be Included in the Special Exposure CohortPDF
82 FR 61038 - Agency Notice of Record of Decision for the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto RicoPDF
82 FR 60949 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 61039 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
82 FR 60969 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 60970 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 60869 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Alligator River, Columbia, NCPDF
82 FR 61028 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of Currently Approved CollectionPDF
82 FR 61003 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Evaluation of the Food and Drug Administration's `Fresh Empire' Multicultural Youth Tobacco Prevention CampaignPDF
82 FR 61017 - Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee; VacancyPDF
82 FR 61006 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; STRIVERDI RESPIMATPDF
82 FR 60994 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 60992 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacture (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 61082 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, To Adopt the Clearing Agency Stress Testing Framework (Market Risk)PDF
82 FR 61050 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 61052 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary .02 to Rule 6.72-O in Order To Extend the Penny Pilot in Options ClassesPDF
82 FR 61070 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 61056 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 61047 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1000 and Commentary .11 to Rule 1012PDF
82 FR 61090 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Listing and Trading of NQX Index OptionsPDF
82 FR 61054 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary .02 to Rule 960NY in Order To Extend the Penny Pilot in Options ClassesPDF
82 FR 61065 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 61089 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 61060 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Margin PolicyPDF
82 FR 61058 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 510 To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 61087 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7260 by Extending the Penny Pilot Program Through June 30, 2018PDF
82 FR 61072 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Concerning Updates to and Formalization of OCC's Recovery and Orderly Wind-Down PlanPDF
82 FR 61107 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Concerning Enhanced and New Tools for Recovery ScenariosPDF
82 FR 61100 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the ProShares Bitcoin ETF and the ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02PDF
82 FR 61067 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Type of MIAX Express Orders Interface Port Known as a MEO Purge Port and To Amend MIAX PEARL Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, To Adopt a New Purge Message, as Well as To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Identify the New MEO Purge PortPDF
82 FR 61001 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 60998 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 61096 - BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation, et al.PDF
82 FR 60971 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Admission To PracticePDF
82 FR 61008 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SIVEXTROPDF
82 FR 60852 - Change of Address; Technical AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 61040 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power StationPDF
82 FR 61038 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 60856 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 60862 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 60860 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 60859 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 61120 - Notice of Intent To Rule on a Land Release Request at North Central West Virginia Airport (CKB), Clarksburg, WVPDF
82 FR 60996 - Submission for OMB Review; Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing DataPDF
82 FR 60864 - Rules of General ApplicationPDF
82 FR 61122 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Application for Amended Basic Permit Under the Federal Alcohol Administration ActPDF
82 FR 61032 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardsPDF
82 FR 61035 - Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
82 FR 60997 - Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 60998 - Notice of an Upcoming Challenge CompetitionPDF
82 FR 61030 - Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 61043 - Criteria for Accident Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear Power PlantsPDF
82 FR 61018 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; National Interest Waivers; Supplemental Evidence to I-140 and I-485PDF
82 FR 61047 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 61046 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 61047 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 61046 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 61044 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 60922 - Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Medical Devices and Combination Products; Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for ManufacturersPDF
82 FR 61094 - FQF Trust, et al.PDF
82 FR 61116 - Request for Information for the 2018 Trafficking in Persons ReportPDF
82 FR 61016 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 61017 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 61016 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 61015 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 60886 - Approval of Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Volatility Standard for Several ParishesPDF
82 FR 60870 - Finding of Failure To Submit a Section 110 State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2012 Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particles; MassachusettsPDF
82 FR 60940 - Denial of Petition To List Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Under Clean Air ActPDF
82 FR 60894 - Confidentiality Determinations for Hazardous Waste Export and Import DocumentsPDF
82 FR 60932 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Notice of Withdrawal of Four Previously Announced Rulemaking ActionsPDF
82 FR 60933 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Revised StatutesPDF

Issue

82 246 Tuesday, December 26, 2017 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training Grant, 60997-60998 2017-27664 Upcoming Challenge Competition, 60998 2017-27663 Agriculture Agriculture Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 60948-60950 2017-27708 2017-27709 2017-27722 2017-27727 Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau PROPOSED RULES Application of the Definition of Machinegun to Bump Fire Stocks and Other Similar Devices, 60929-60932 2017-27898 Army Army Department NOTICES Army Science Board, 60971-60972 2017-27726 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 60998-61002 2017-27688 2017-27743 2017-27687 Final National Occupational Research Agenda for Cancer, Reproductive, Cardiovascular and Other Chronic Disease Prevention, 61000 2017-27762 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Medicare Shared Savings Program: Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017, 60912-60919 2017-27920 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61002-61003 2017-27787 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Indiana Advisory Committee, 60950-60951 2017-27779 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Alligator River, Columbia, NC, 60869-60870 2017-27718 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, 61017-61018 2017-27711 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, 60996-60997 2017-27672
Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Petitions, 60951 2017-27725 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study Main Study Recruitment and Field Test, 60973 2017-27747 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61029-61030 2017-27758 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Program: Standards for Rough Service Lamps and Vibration Service Lamps, 60845-60852 2017-27744 NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada, 60973-60974 2017-27754 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico, 60974-60975 2017-27755 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth, 60974 2017-27756
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Approvals and Promulgations: Philadelphia; Control of Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units; Withdrawal, 60872 2017-27795 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maryland; Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Municipal Waste Combustors; Withdrawal, 60872-60873 2017-27796 Approval of Louisiana's Request to Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Several Parishes, 60886-60890 2017-27628 Community Right-to-Know: Adopting 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting, 60906-60911 2017-27815 Confidentiality Determinations for Hazardous Waste Export and Import Documents, 60894-60901 2017-27525 Finding of Failure to Submit a Section 110 State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2012 Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particles: Massachusetts, 60870-60872 2017-27625 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin Lines Technology Review and Revision of Flame Attenuation Lines Standards, 60873-60886 2017-27797 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the C&D Recycling Superfund Site, 60901-60906 2017-27801 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant; Withdrawal, 60890 2017-27799 Tolerance Exemptions: 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), 60890-60894 2017-27805 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Revised Statutes, 60933-60939 2017-27296 Denial of Petition to List Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Under Clean Air Act Section 111, 60940 2017-27622 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the C&D Recycling Superfund Site, 60946-60947 2017-27802 Partial Deletion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site, 60943-60946 2017-27794 Pesticide Tolerances: Alpha-cypermethrin, 60940-60943 2017-27806 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, 60994-60995 2017-27707 NSPS for Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacture, 60992-60993 2017-27706 NSPS for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, 60995 2017-27772 NSPS for Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, 60991-60992 2017-27771 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, New Mexico, 60985 2017-27770 Pesticide Product Registrations: New Active Ingredients, 60993-60994 2017-27810 Product Cancellation Orders: Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amendments to Terminate Uses, 60985-60989 2017-27811 Production of Confidential Business Information in Pending Litigation: Transfer of Information Claimed or Determined to Potentially Contain Confidential Business Information to the United States Department of Justice and Parties to Certain Litigation, 60984-60985 2017-27814 Registration Reviews: Biopesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment, 60990-60991 2017-27812 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (LHTEC), CTS800-4AT; 30-minute All Engines Operating Power Rating, 60854-60856 2017-27774 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures: Miscellaneous Amendments, 60856-60864 2017-27676 2017-27677 2017-27679 2017-27680 NOTICES Land Releases: North Central West Virginia Airport, Clarksburg, WV, 61120 2017-27675 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Radio Broadcasting Services: AM or FM Proposals To Change The Community of License, 60995-60996 2017-27739 Federal Election Federal Election Commission RULES Change of Address; Technical Amendments, 60852-60854 2017-27683 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 60975-60976, 60978-60981 2017-27731 2017-27732 2017-27736 Determinations of Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities: Wallowa Resources Community Solutions Inc., 60977-60978 2017-27728 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Line 8000 Replacement Project, 60981-60983 2017-27729 Wells Rural Electric Co., 60984 2017-27733 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: Franklin Energy Storage One, LLC; Franklin Energy Storage Two, LLC; Franklin Energy Storage Three, LLC; Franklin Energy Storage Four, LLC, 60983-60984 2017-27735 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 60976-60977 2017-27734 Revocations of Market-Based Rate Tariffs: Electric Quarterly Reports; Niagara Generation, LLC; C2K Energy, LLC; et al., 60976 2017-27730 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Petitions for Rulemaking: Coalition for Fair Port Practices, 60996 2017-27763 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 61120-61122 2017-27776 2017-27777 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Anesthesiology Devices; Classification of the External Negative Pressure Airway Aid, 60865-60867 2017-27784 PROPOSED RULES Animal Food Additive Petitions: Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB, 60921-60922 2017-27789 Zinpro Corp.; Reopening of the Comment Period, 60920-60921 2017-27785 Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Medical Devices and Combination Products; Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for Manufacturers, 60922-60929 2017-27650 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, 61013-61015 2017-27757 Evaluation of the Food and Drug Administration's 'Fresh Empire' Multicultural Youth Tobacco Prevention Campaign, 61003-61006 2017-27712 Determinations of Regulatory Review Periods for Purposes of Patent Extensions: SIVEXTRO, 61008-61010 2017-27684 STRIVERDI RESPIMAT, 61006-61008 2017-27710 ZYKADIA, 61010-61011 2017-27745 Guidance: Waiver of In Vivo Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms Based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System, 61011-61013 2017-27786 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Subzone Expansions; Approvals: BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Duncan, SC, 60951-60952 2017-27783 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, 60996-60997 2017-27672 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Petitions to Add a Class of Employees to the Special Exposure Cohort, 61015 2017-27724
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Meetings: Moving to Work Research Advisory Committee, 61019-61020 2017-27766 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 61020-61023 2017-27767 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Final Determination against Federal Acknowledgment of the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, 61023-61027 2017-27764 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, 60952-60954 2017-27748 International Trade Com International Trade Commission RULES Rules of General Application, 60864-60865 2017-27671 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61028 2017-27851 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

PROPOSED RULES Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Withdrawal of Four Previously Announced Rulemaking Actions, 60932-60933 2017-27510 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61028-61029 2017-27713 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 61028 2017-27741
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Labor Statistics Bureau

See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Meetings: Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiation and Trade Policy, 61030 2017-27742
Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61030-61032 2017-27662 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Plats of Survey: Arizona, 61027-61028 2017-27775 Millenium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Report on Countries That Are Candidates for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility in Fiscal Year 2018, 61036-61038 2017-27876 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Petitions for Modification: Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 61032-61035 2017-27666 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, 60996-60997 2017-27672 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See

Office of Government Information Services

National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Charter Renewals: PubMed Central National Advisory Committee, 61015 2017-27792 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 61017 2017-27645 National Advisory Council for Complementary and Integrative Health, 61016 2017-27790 National Human Genome Research Institute, 61015-61016 2017-27791 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 61016 2017-27644 National Institute on Aging, 61015-61017 2017-27643 2017-27646 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, 60969-60970 2017-27769 Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 60970-60971 2017-27719 New England Fishery Management Council, 60969 2017-27720 Permit Applications: Marine Mammals; File No. 21386, 60967-60968 2017-27738 Permits: Marine Mammals and Endangered Species, 60968-60969 2017-27737 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Boost-Back and Landing of Falcon 9 Rockets, 60954-60967 2017-27761 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 61039 2017-27721 Records of Decisions: Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, 61038-61039 2017-27723 Navy Navy Department RULES Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, 60867-60869 2017-27759 NOTICES Meetings: Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel and Subcommittee Naval Research Advisory Committee, 60972-60973 2017-27760 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 61040-61043 2017-27682 Guidance: Criteria for Accident Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear Power Plants, 61043-61044 2017-27661 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61039-61040 2017-27844 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels, 61035-61036 2017-27665 OGIS Office of Government Information Services NOTICES Meetings: Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee, 61038 2017-27681 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Admission to Practice, 60971 2017-27685 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 61044-61046 2017-27653 2017-27773 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement, 61046-61047 2017-27655 2017-27656 2017-27657 Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement, 61046 2017-27658 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 61047 2017-27659 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Critical Minerals; Federal Strategy To Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies (EO 13817), 60835-60837 2017-27899 Human Rights Abuse or Corruption, Property of Persons Involved in Serious; Efforts To Block (EO 13818), 60839-60843 2017-27925 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61056 2017-27740 Applications: BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation, et al., 61096-61100 2017-27686 FQF Trust, et al., 61094-61096 2017-27649 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61087 2017-27833 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange LLC, 61087-61089 2017-27693 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 61058-61060 2017-27694 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 61067-61070 2017-27689 Nasdaq BX, Inc., 61050-61052 2017-27704 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 61089-61090 2017-27696 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 61065-61067, 61090-61094 2017-27697 2017-27699 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 61056-61058 2017-27701 Nasdaq PHLX LLC, 61047-61050 2017-27700 NYSE American LLC, 61054-61056 2017-27698 NYSE Arca, Inc., 61052-61054, 61100-61107 2017-27690 2017-27703 The Depository Trust Co.; Fixed Income Clearing Corp.; National Securities Clearing Corp., 61082-61087 2017-27705 The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, 61070-61072 2017-27702 The Options Clearing Corp., 61060-61065, 61072-61082, 61107-61116 2017-27691 2017-27692 2017-27695 State Department State Department NOTICES Requests for Information: 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report, 61116-61120 2017-27647 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Amended Basic Permit under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 61122 2017-27667 U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Interest Waivers; Supplemental Evidence to I-140 and I-485, 61018-61019 2017-27660 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.

82 246 Tuesday, December 26, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE-2017-BT-STD-0057] Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Rough Service Lamps and Vibration Service Lamps AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing this final rule in order to codify in the Code of Federal Regulations certain backstop requirements for rough service lamps and vibration service lamps that Congress prescribed in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. These backstop requirements apply as a result of the subject lamps exceeding sales thresholds specified in the statute. In particular, this rule applies a statutorily-established 40-watt maximum energy use and packaging limitation to rough service lamps and vibration service lamps.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is January 25, 2018. The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this rulemaking is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on January 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0057. The docket web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected]

Appliance Standards staff, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule incorporates by reference into 10 CFR part 430 the following commercial standard: NSF/ANSI 51-2007 (“NSF/ANSI 51”), Food equipment materials, revised and adopted April 2007. Copies of NSF/ANSI 51 may be purchased from NSF International, P.O. Box 130140, 789 North Dixboro Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140, 1-800-673-6275, or go to http://www.nsf.org.

For a further discussion of this standard, see section IV.M.

Table of Contents I. Background II. Summary of This Action III. Final Action IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Congressional Notification M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Background

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),1 Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), DOE is required to collect unit sales data for calendar years 2010 through 2025, in consultation with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), for rough service, shatter-resistant, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and vibration service lamps. For each of these five lamp types, DOE, in consultation with NEMA, must also construct a model based on coincident economic indicators that closely match the historical annual growth rates of each lamp type to provide a neutral comparison benchmark estimate of future unit sales. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(B). Section 321(a)(3)(B) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) in part amends paragraph 325(l) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) through (H), which direct DOE to initiate an accelerated rulemaking to establish an energy conservation standard for these lamps if the actual annual unit sales of any of the lamp types in any year between 2010 and 2025 exceed the benchmark estimate of unit sales by at least 100 percent (i.e., are greater than 200 percent of the anticipated sales). (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)-(H)) If the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) does not complete the accelerated rulemakings within one year from the end of the previous calendar year during which predicted sales were exceeded, there is a “backstop requirement” for each lamp type, which would establish, by statute, energy conservation standard levels and related requirements. Id. For 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, this backstop is automatically imposed once the benchmark unit sales estimates are exceeded.

1 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

By this action, DOE is placing in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the statutory backstop requirements for rough service lamps and vibration service lamps prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii) and (E)(ii). These sections, which were added by EISA 2007, establish energy conservation standard levels and related requirements for rough service lamps and vibration service lamps if DOE does not complete a rulemaking in an accelerated 1 year period after issuing a finding that the specified benchmark unit sales estimates had been exceeded.

II. Summary of This Action

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of “vibration service lamp.” A “vibration service lamp” means a lamp that—(i) has filament configurations that are C-5, C-7A, or C-9, as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th Edition of the IESNA [Illuminating Engineering Society of North America] Lighting Handbook or similar configurations; (ii) has a maximum wattage of 60 watts; (iii) is sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps or less; and (iv) is designated and marketed specifically for vibration service or vibration-resistant applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being vibration service only. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA))

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of “rough service lamp.” A “rough service lamp” means a lamp that—(i) has a minimum of 5 supports with filament configurations that are C-7A, C-11, C-17, and C-22 as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th edition of the IESNA Lighting handbook, or similar configurations where lead wires are not counted as supports; and (ii) is designated and marketed specifically for “rough service” applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being for rough service. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X))

DOE published a notice of data availability (NODA) in April 2016, which indicated that the shipments of vibration service lamps were over 7 million units in 2015. This equates to 272.5 percent of the benchmark estimate, which was 2,594,000 units. 81 FR 20261, 20263 (April 7, 2016). Therefore, vibration service lamps exceeded the statutory threshold for the first time, thus triggering an accelerated rulemaking to be completed no later than December 31, 2016. Id. Furthermore, NEMA submitted revised data for rough service lamps following the publication of the April 2016 NODA at 81 FR 20261. The revised data showed sales of 10,914,000 rough service lamps in 2015, which exceeded 100% of the benchmark estimate of 4,967,000 units for 2015.2 This resulted in a requirement for DOE to initiate an accelerated rulemaking for rough service lamps. In an October 2016 notice of proposed definition and data availability (NOPDDA), DOE indicated it must conduct an energy conservation standards rulemaking for rough service lamps to be completed no later than the end of the 2016 calendar year. 81 FR 71794, 71800 (Oct. 18, 2016).

2 See ex parte memorandum published in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0051-0075.

If the Secretary does not complete these accelerated rulemakings within the one year time frame accorded by EPCA, the statute provides a backstop requirement that becomes an energy conservation standard for vibration service and rough service lamps. This backstop requirement would require vibration service lamps to: (1) Have a maximum 40-watt limitation and (2) be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(E)(ii). For rough service lamps, the backstop requires that the lamps: (1) Have a shatter-proof coating or equivalent technology that complies with NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken and to provide effective containment over the life of the lamp; (2) have a maximum 40-watt limitation; and (3) be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii).

Since unit sales for vibration service lamps and rough service lamps exceeded 200 percent of the benchmark estimate in 2015, and DOE did not complete an energy conservation standards rulemaking for these lamps by the end of calendar year 2016, the backstop requirement was triggered, without discretion, and is now applicable. For this final rule, DOE codifies at 10 CFR 430.32 the statutory requirements that apply to rough service lamps and vibration service lamps in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii) and (E)(ii). These energy conservation levels and requirements apply to rough service lamps and vibration service lamps manufactured on or after January 25, 2018. While DOE did not meet its statutory deadline to complete an accelerated rulemaking by the end of calendar year 2016, an effective date of January 25, 2018, remains generally consistent with the intent of Congress to provide for a one calendar year period between imposition of the energy conservation standard and compliance with such standard. The Secretary will continue to collect and model data for rough service lamps and vibration service lamps for two years after this effective date, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(I)(ii).

III. Final Action

DOE has determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this final rule are unnecessary. DOE is merely placing in the CFR, verbatim, certain requirements and wattage limitations for rough service lamps and vibration service lamps prescribed by Congress in EPCA. DOE is not exercising any of the discretionary authority that Congress has provided to the Secretary of Energy in EPCA. As such, prior notice and an opportunity for comment would serve no purpose in this instance. DOE, therefore, finds that good cause exists to waive prior notice and an opportunity to comment for this rulemaking.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

This final rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, this action was subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary

The purpose of this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is to describe the range of potential costs related to applying the statutorily-established 40 watt maximum energy use and packaging limitation to rough and vibration service lamps as well as the shatter-proof coating requirement for rough service lamps. This RIA presents three separate consumer substitution scenarios due to the elimination of greater than 40 watt rough and vibration service lamps from the market. These three scenarios provide lower and upper bounds of the range of potential monetized costs, but they do not take into account lost utility caused by the substitutions. DOE estimates this rule to eliminate 80% of the rough and vibration service lamp market. DOE took this bounding approach because data are unavailable to forecast consumer response to the rule.

In the first scenario, consumers are assumed to substitute rough and vibration service lamps greater than 40 watts with rough and service lamps less than 40 watts. In the second scenario, consumers are assumed to substitute greater than 40 watt rough and vibration service lamps with shatter-resistant lamps greater than 40 watts. In the third scenario, consumers are assumed to substitute greater than 40 watt rough and vibration service lamps with LEDs emitting equivalent lumens as the lamps they would replace. In all three scenarios, consumers would still have access to rough and vibration service lamp less than 40 watts but would pay more per unit due to the new packaging limitations and shatter proofing requirements.

Table 1 summarizes the three substitution scenarios as potential incremental costs and market value associated with this rulemaking. For a lower bound, the rule could increase aggregate consumer spending by $14.7 million if all consumers substituted greater than 40 watt rough and vibration service lamps with those less than 40 watts. For an upper bound, the rule could increase consumer spending by $72.8M if all consumers substituted greater than 40 watt rough and vibration service lamps with LEDs that emit equivalent lumens. In practice, there will likely be a mix of market responses across consumers. In the lower bound estimated especially there is likely to be additional, non-quantified lost utility because consumers are substituting lower wattage bulbs that deliver less light.

Table 1 Substitution scenarios * <40W rough/vibration service lamps Shatterproof
  • lamps
  • (>40W)
  • LEDs
  • (equivalent
  • lumens)
  • Incremental Cost $1.33 (rough)
  • $0.02 (vibration)
  • $1.31 $2.91
    Market Value $14.7M 49.8M 72.8M * Includes increased cost for packaging and shatter proofing for <40W rough and vibration service lamps. A more detailed summary of those costs are provided in the Consumer Impacts section.
    Background

    These requirements apply as a result of these lamps exceeding sales thresholds specified as required by EPCA.

    Pursuant to reporting and tracking requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D) and (E), NEMA reported to DOE the following figures for rough service lamp and vibration service lamp shipments for the year 2015:

    Rough Service Lamps 10,914,000 Vibration Service Lamps 7,071,000

    Because unit sales for rough service and vibration service lamps exceeded 100 percent of the neutral benchmark estimate of unit sales in 2015,3 and DOE did not complete an accelerated rulemaking establishing standards for these lamps within the statutorily required timeframe, EPCA mandates the following backstop requirement that becomes an energy standard for vibration and rough service lamps. This backstop requirement requires vibration service lamps to: (1) Have a maximum 40-watt limitation and (2) be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(E)(ii). For rough service lamps, the backstop requires that the lamps: (1) Have a shatter-proof coating or equivalent technology that complies with NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken and to provide effective containment over the life of the lamp; (2) have a maximum 40-watt limitation; and (3) be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii). These energy conservation levels and requirements apply to rough service and vibration service lamps manufactured on or after January 25, 2018.

    3See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0013-0002.

    Market Impacts

    The practical effect of the backstop requirement is to remove rough and vibration service lamps over 40 watts from the market starting on January 25, 2018. DOE conducted an order of magnitude analysis to assess the likely costs associated with this action. As a first step, DOE looked at the revenue of the lamps above 40 watts that will no longer be generated by industry.

    Because DOE was previously prohibited from collecting data regarding incandescent lamps, including the subject lamps, DOE does not have data regarding the percentage of lamps sold of both types above 40 watts. DOE estimates that about 80 percent of rough and vibration service lamps are over 40 watts and will therefore no longer be available. Based on a review of home center prices, DOE concluded that these lamps sell for an average of $1.95 per lamp. Using this average sales price of $1.95, at the volumes reported in 2015, the market for rough and vibration service lamps greater than 40 watts was just over $28 million, out of a total market value of just over $35 million for all rough and vibration service lamps. Table 2 summarizes estimated current revenue associated with the subject lamps greater than 40 watts.

    Table 2 Rough service lamps Vibration
  • service lamps
  • Shipments in 2015 10,914,000 7,071,000 Average Sales Price $1.95 Percent of Sales >40W 80% Lost total revenue from >40W lamp removal from market $17,026,000 $11,031,000 Total $28,057,000
    Consumer Impacts

    In the absence of rough and vibration service lamps above 40 watts, DOE believes that all or most consumers of these lamps will purchase a replacement product because the demand for light bulbs is expected to remain constant and not diminish significantly as a result of certain products exiting the market, even though substitute bulbs may be more costly. Consumers have multiple replacement options presented in the following three scenarios: (1) Rough or vibration service lamps less than 40 watts, (2) shatter-resistant lamps greater than 40 watts or (3) LED lamps emitting equivalent lumens. DOE does not attempt here to account for the reasons behind a consumer's choice to purchase a specific lamp type, hence a set of scenarios that represent lower and upper bounds of the incremental monetized cost of this final rule are presented. For rough and vibration service lamps less than 40 watts, consumers will pay more per unit via pass though costs due to the backstop packaging and shatterproof coating requirements. These costs are built into the three scenarios, but are detailed here for transparency.

    For the cost of packaging and shatter proofing requirement of the backstop provisions, DOE estimates imposition of the required backstop standard would result in a modest market cost increase related to the new packaging requirements for vibration and rough service lamps, of approximately $0.02 per unit, and to the new shatterproof coating requirements for rough service lamps of approximately $1.31 per unit. For vibration service lamps, DOE estimates additional packaging costs to be roughly $28,000. For rough service lamps, DOE estimates additional packaging costs totaling $44,000. For rough service lamps, DOE estimates shatterproof coating costs to be about $2,852,000.

    Table 3 summarizes these incremental costs for packaging and shatterproofing rough and vibration service lamps less than 40 watts under the estimated current 20 percent market profile when the rule is effective.

    Table 3 Rough service lamps Vibration
  • service lamps
  • Shipments in 2015 10,914,000 7,071,000 Percent of Sales for <40W 20% Unit Cost for Packaging $0.02 Unit Cost for Shatter proofing $1.31 NA Increased total cost for packaging for <40W $44,000 $28,000 Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W $2,852,000 NA Total $2,924,000
    Substitution Scenario 1: Rough or Vibration Service Lamps Less Than 40 Watts

    Any lost opportunity to purchase rough service and vibration service lamps over 40 watts is diminished by the fact that consumers will still be able to purchase the 40 watt versions of these lamps after the backstop requires compliance. These lamps will require the same packaging and shatter proofing provisions so the substitution cost will increase. There is some utility lost associated with this substitution, primarily due to the fact that the lumen output from a 40 watt lamp is typically less than it would be for a lamp at a higher wattage. However, utility is not included in the calculation. Table 4 summarizes the incremental costs of the rule under this substitution scenario. Note that the costs for packaging and shatter proofing are higher than those shown in Table 3 because in this scenario, all bulbs will need to have these costs added, not just the ones currently <40 watts.

    Table 4 Rough service lamps Vibration
  • service lamps
  • Shipments in 2015 10,914,000 7,071,000 Percent of Sales >40W and <40W 100% Unit Cost for Packaging $0.02 Unit Cost for Shatter proofing $1.31 NA Increased total cost for packaging for <40W $218,000 $141,000 Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W $14,297,000 NA Subtotal $14,516,000 $141,000 Total $14,657,000
    Substitution Scenario 2: Shatter-Resistant Lamps Greater Than 40 Watts

    Consumers could choose to purchase an existing shatter-resistant lamp over 40 watts as there is significant overlap in application among rough service, vibration service, and shatter-resistant lamps. Many of these products are already co-named (e.g., a rough service and vibration service lamp or a rough service and shatter-resistant lamp) and the requirement to add a shatter-proof coating as part of the backstop requirement is evidence that shatter-resistant lamps can be used in the same applications as rough service lamps. DOE expects minimal loss in consumer utility from this substitution. Shatter-resistant lamp sales have not exceeded their specified threshold. As a result, DOE has not been obligated to establish standards for this lamp type. Therefore, they are available using incandescent technology and are the lowest cost replacement option. Compared to a rough or vibration service lamp, a shatter-resistant lamp is about 67 percent more expensive, or an incremental increase of $1.31.4 Table 5 summarizes the incremental costs for shatter-resistant lamps (inclusive of cost increases for rough and vibration service lamps less than 40 watts currently purchased) under this scenario.

    4 This value was based on a comparison of Home Center prices of rough service lamps and shatter-resistant lamps. The manufacturer, wattage, shape, and correlated color temperature (CCT) were the same between the lamps being compared.

    Table 5 Rough service lamps Vibration
  • service lamps
  • Shipments in 2015 10,914,000 7,071,000 Percent of Sales >40W 80% Percent of Sales <40W 20% Average Sales Price $1.95 Shatter-resistant lamp sales price $3.26 Incremental sales price increase $1.31 Increased cost for shatter-resistant lamps due to >40W removal from market $28,433,000 $18,421,000 Increased total cost for packaging for <40W $44,000 $28,000 Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W $2,852,000 NA Subtotal $31,329,000 $18,450,000 Total $49,778,000
    Substitution Scenario 3: LED Lamps With Equivalent Lumens

    Alternatively, consumers could choose to purchase a more efficient light-emitting diode (LED) lamp as a replacement. LED lamps can be used without modification in rough service applications, vibration service applications, or applications that require shatter-resistance because of the materials used in their construction and the absence of a filament. While LED lamps are currently about 149 percent more expensive,5 or an incremental increase of $2.91, than rough and vibration service lamps, they are more widely available than shatter-resistant lamps and also have features that consumers would find desirable, such as longer lifetimes and lower wattages (while maintaining the same amount of light). Further, DOE notes that prices for LED lamps continue to decrease in the marketplace. Table 6 summarizes the incremental costs for LED lamps (inclusive of cost increases for rough and vibration service lamps less than 40 watts) under this scenario.

    5 This value was based on a comparison of Home Center prices of rough service lamps and LED lamps. The manufacturer, wattage-equivalency, shape, and CCT were the same between the lamps being compared.

    Table 6 Rough service lamps Vibration
  • service lamps
  • Shipments in 2015 10,914,000 7,071,000 Percent of Sales >40W 80% Percent of Sales <40W 20% Average Sales Price $1.95 LED lamp sales price $4.86 Incremental sales price increase $2.91 Increased cost for shatter-resistant lamps due to >40W removal from market $42,394,000 $27,467,000 Increased total cost for packaging for <40W $44,000 $28,000 Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W $2,852,000 NA Subtotal $45,290,000 $27,495,000 Total $72,785,000
    Lifecycle Costs

    In addition to considering the upfront cost of purchasing the lightbulb, DOE also considered the lifecycle costs over the expected lifetime of the lamps. The factors that the agency considered for the lifecycle cost estimate were the upfront price of the lamp, lifetime of the lamp, usage time of the lamp, and the cost of electricity. DOE estimated the lifecycle costs for rough service lamps compared to LED lamps (unnecessary for the incandescent substitution scenarios) under the following scenario. If the LED bulb can be used for the rough service applications, the cost of operating it for 3 hours a day is $1.32 per year (3 hours a day at $.11 a kilowatt hour). The bulb is expected to have a life of about 13 years. The lifecycle cost of buying the bulb and using it for its life would be about $22.00. A 75 watt rough service incandescent bulb costs $.50 up front, but $9.03 a year to use 3 hours a day (see the lighting facts here: https://www.lightbulbs.com/product/bulbrite-107275#). The life of the rough service lamp is 4.6 years. Over that time its lifecycle costs approximately $42.00 to buy and use a rough service lamp, and it only lasts on average about as third as long.

    In this example, the LED lifecycle costs are $22.00 to use it 3 hours a day for 13 years vs. $42.00 for the rough service incandescent for only 4.6 years. The lower LED lifecycle costs suggests that consumers are buying rough service incandescent lamps for reasons that may not be easily quantified. For example, consumers could purchase these lamps and put them in places where they are rarely used, such as a pantry or a closet. Then it makes sense to buy an inexpensive bulb because what matters is the upfront cost, not the cost of operating it. Consumers may have other reasons for choosing incandescent bulbs as well. The uncertainty surrounding these decisions are why it is difficult to model macro consumer response to this rule.

    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE today is revising the Code of Federal Regulations to incorporate and implement, verbatim, energy conservation standards for rough service lamps and vibration service lamps prescribed by EPCA. Because this is an amendment for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this rulemaking.

    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking imposes no new information or record keeping requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has determined that the rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. (See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)-(5).) The rule fits within this category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX determination for this rule is available at http://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.

    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.

    DOE has concluded that this final rule does not require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector, so the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply.

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

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

    DOE has concluded that this regulatory action is not a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this final rule.

    L. Congressional Notification

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

    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference a commercial standard published by NSF International, NSF/ANSI 51 Food equipment materials. This standard applies specifically to materials and coatings used in the manufacturing of equipment and objects designed for contact with foodstuffs. Copies of NSF/ANSI 51 are reasonably available and may be purchased from NSF International, P.O. Box 130140, 789 North Dixboro Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140, 1-800-673-6275, or go to http://www.nsf.org.

    V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2017. Daniel R Simmons, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

    PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    § 430.3 [Amended]
    2. In § 430.3, paragraph (s)(1) is amended by removing “§ 430.2.” and adding in its place “§§ 430.2 and 430.32.” 3. Section 430.32 is amended by adding paragraph (bb) to read as follows:
    § 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance dates.

    (bb) Rough service lamps and vibration service lamps. (1) Rough service lamps manufactured on or after January 25, 2018 must:

    (i) Have a shatter-proof coating or equivalent technology that is compliant with NSF/ANSI 51 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken and to provide effective containment over the life of the lamp;

    (ii) Have a rated wattage not greater than 40 watts; and

    (iii) Be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp.

    (2) Vibration service lamps manufactured on or after January 25, 2018 must:

    (i) Have a rated wattage no greater than 40 watts; and

    (ii) Be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp.

    [FR Doc. 2017-27744 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Chapter I [Notice 2017-17] Change of Address; Technical Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) will relocate to a building with a different street address in 2018 and is amending its regulations referencing its current street address to reflect this change in location.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective January 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Tony Buckley, Attorney, or Mr. Eugene Lynch, Paralegal, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 5, 2018, the Federal Election Commission will officially relocate to a new street address: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463. Until March 5, 2018, the Commission will continue to reside and accept mail at 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463.

    The Commission is promulgating these amendments without advance notice or an opportunity for comment because they fall under the “good cause” exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Commission finds that notice and comment are unnecessary here because these amendments are merely technical; they effect no substantive changes to any rule. For the same reason, these amendments fall within the “good cause” exception to the delayed effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 808(2). Moreover, because these amendments are exempt from the notice and comment procedure of the Administrative Procedure Act under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Commission is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 or 604. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 604(a). Nor is the Commission required to submit these amendments for congressional review under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, as amended, or the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, as amended. See 52 U.S.C. 30111(d)(1), (4) (providing for congressional review when Commission “prescribe[s]” a “rule of law”); 26 U.S.C. 9009(c)(1), (4), 9039(c)(1), (4) (same).

    List of Subjects 11 CFR Part 1

    Privacy.

    11 CFR Part 2

    Sunshine Act.

    11 CFR Part 4

    Freedom of information.

    11 CFR Part 5

    Archives and records.

    11 CFR Part 6

    Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities.

    11 CFR Part 7

    Administrative practice and procedure, Conflict of interests, Government employees, Political activities (government employees).

    11 CFR Part 100

    Elections.

    11 CFR Part 102

    Political activities (government employees), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    11 CFR Part 104

    Campaign funds, Political activities (government employees), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    11 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Elections, Law enforcement, Penalties.

    11 CFR Part 112

    Administrative practice and procedure, Elections.

    11 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    11 CFR Parts 9002 and 9032

    Campaign funds.

    11 CFR Part 9008

    Campaign funds, Political committees and parties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission amends 11 CFR chapter I as follows:

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

    5 U.S.C. 552a.

    2. Amend § 1.2 by revising the definition for “Commission” to read as follows:
    § 1.2 Definitions.

    Commission means the Federal Election Commission, its Commissioners and employees. Until March 5, 2018, the Commission is located at 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463. Beginning on March 5, 2018, the Commission will be located at 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463. The Commission's internet website address (www.fec.gov) remains unchanged.

    § 1.3 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 1.3(b) by removing “Chief Privacy Officer, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463 during the hours of 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.” and adding in its place “Commission's Chief Privacy Officer during the hours of 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2.”
    § 1.4 [Amended]
    4. Amend § 1.4(a) by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2,”. PART 2—SUNSHINE REGULATIONS; MEETINGS 5. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552b.

    § 2.2 [Amended]
    6. Amend § 2.2(a) by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”. PART 4—PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 7. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552, as amended.

    § 4.5 [Amended]
    8. Amend § 4.5(a)(4)(i) and (iv) by removing “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”.
    § 4.7 [Amended]
    9. Amend § 4.7(b)(1) by removing “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”.
    § 4.8 [Amended]
    10. Amend § 4.8(c) by removing “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. PART 5—ACCESS TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND MEDIA RELATIONS DIVISION DOCUMENTS 11. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30108(d), 30109(a)(4)(B)(ii), 30111(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    § 5.5 [Amended]
    12. Amend § 5.5 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove “on the first floor, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”; and add in its place “at the Federal Election Commission at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. b. In paragraph (c), remove “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”and add in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. PART 6—ENFORCEMENT OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 13. The authority citation for part 6 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 794.

    § 6.103 [Amended]
    14. Amend § 6.103(b) by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”.
    § 6.170 [Amended]
    15. Amend § 6.170 as follows: a. In paragraph (d)(3), remove “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”; and add in its place “Federal Election Commission, at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. b. In paragraph (i), remove “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”and add in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. PART 7—STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 16. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30106, 30107, and 30111; 5 U.S.C. 7321 et seq. and app. 3.

    § 7.2 [Amended]
    17. Amend § 7.2(a) by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”. PART 100—SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS (52 U.S.C. 30101) 18. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30101, 30104, 30111(a)(8), and 30114(c).

    § 100.9 [Amended]
    19. Amend § 100.9 by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”.
    § 100.19 [Amended]
    20. Amend § 100.19(a) by removing “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. PART 102—REGISTRATION, ORGANIZATION, AND RECORDKEEPING BY POLITICAL COMMITTEES (52 U.S.C. 30103) 21. The authority citation for part 102 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30104(a)(11), 30111(a)(8), and 30120.

    § 102.2 [Amended]
    22. Amend § 102.2(a)(1) introductory text by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”. PART 104—REPORTS BY POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND OTHER PERSONS (52 U.S.C. 30104) 23. The authority citation for part 104 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30101(1), 30101(8), 30101(9), 30102(i), 30104, 30111(a)(8) and (b), 30114, 30116, 36 U.S.C. 510.

    § 104.2 [Amended]
    24. Amend § 104.2(b) by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”.
    § 104.3 [Amended]
    25. Amend § 104.3(e)(5) by removing “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”.
    § 104.21 [Amended]
    26. Amend § 104.21(c)(3) by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. PART 111—COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE (52 U.S.C. 30109, 30107(A)) 27. The authority citation for part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30102(i), 30109, 30107(a), 30111(a)(8); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 3711, 3716-3719, and 3720A, as amended; 31 CFR parts 285 and 900-904.

    § 111.4 [Amended]
    28. Amend § 111.4(a) by removing “General Counsel, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”and adding in its place “General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”.
    § 111.15 [Amended]
    29. Amend § 111.15(a) by removing “General Counsel, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”and adding in its place “General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”.
    § 111.16 [Amended]
    30. Amend § 111.16(c) by removing from the first and second sentences “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. PART 112—ADVISORY OPINIONS (52 U.S.C. 30108) 31. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30108, 30111(a)(8).

    § 112.1 [Amended]
    32. Amend § 112.1(e) by removing “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”.
    § 112.3 [Amended]
    33. Amend § 112.3(d) by removing “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. PART 200—PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING 34. The authority citation for part 200 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30107(a)(8), 30111(a)(8); 5 U.S.C. 553(e).

    § 200.2 [Amended]
    35. Amend § 200.2(b)(5) by removing “999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463” and adding in its place “at the street address identified in the definition of “Commission” in § 1.2”. PART 9002—DEFINITIONS 36. The authority citation for part 9002 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 9002 and 9009(b).

    § 9002.3 [Amended]
    37. Amend § 9002.3 by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”. PART 9008—FEDERAL FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS 38. The authority citation for part 9008 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30105, 30111(a)(8), 30125; 26 U.S.C. 9008, 9009(b).

    § 9008.2 [Amended]
    39. Amend § 9008.2(a) by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”. PART 9032—DEFINITIONS 40. The authority citation for part 9032 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 9032 and 9039(b).

    § 9032.3 [Amended]
    41. Amend § 9032.3 by removing “, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463”. Dated: December 19, 2017.

    On behalf of the Commission.

    Steven T. Walther, Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27683 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 33 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1110; Special Conditions No. 33-021-SC] Special Conditions: Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (LHTEC), CTS800-4AT; 30-Minute All Engines Operating Power Rating AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final special conditions; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    These special conditions are issued for the Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (LHTEC), CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine model. This engine model will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with a 30-minute all engines operating (AEO) power rating. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These 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:

    The effective date of these special conditions is January 10, 2018. We must receive your comments by January 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1110 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 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    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:

    Christopher Richards, AIR-6A2, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5213; telephone (847) 361-0837; facsimile (781) 238-7199; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the Type Certificate approval and thus, delivery of the affected engines.

    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances, and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the engine, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions.

    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 by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On April 14, 2017, LHTEC applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. TE2CH to include the new CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine model. The CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine model is a derivative model in the CTS800 turboshaft engine series. The CTS800-4AT is a free-turbine turboshaft engine and will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, which is a 30-minute AEO power rating. LHTEC has requested this rating to support helicopter search and rescue missions that require hover operations at high power.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 21.101, LHTEC must show that the CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine model meets the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. TE2CH or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. 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 TE2CH are as follows: 14 CFR part 33 dated June 3, 1964, as amended by Amendments 33-1 through 33-18 inclusive.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the LHTEC, CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine model 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 engine model(s) for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that engine model be amended later to include any other engine model(s) that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other engine model(s) already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other engine model(s) under § 21.101.

    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 or § 21.101.

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine model will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, which is a 30-minute AEO power rating. This rating will be used to support helicopter search and rescue missions that require hover operations at high power.

    Discussion

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(a)(1) and 21.101(a), LHTEC must show that the CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine meets the provisions of the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application, unless otherwise specified by the FAA. The type certification basis for the derivative model CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine is 14 CFR part 33, Amendments 33-1 through 33-18 effective August 19, 1996, which does not contain adequate safety standards concerning a 30-minute AEO power rating. Therefore, these special conditions will add requirements to the rating definition, instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA), engine ratings and operating limitations, instrument connection, and endurance testing.

    The 30-minute time limit applies to each instance the rating is used. In addition, there is no limit to the number of times the rating can be used during any one flight, and there is no cumulative time limitation. The ICA requirement is intended to address the unknown nature of the actual rating usage and associated engine deterioration. LHTEC will assess the expected usage and publish ICAs with airworthiness limitations section (ALS) limits in accordance with those assumptions, such that engine deterioration is not excessive. Because the CTS800-4AT engine has a continuous one engine inoperative (OEI) rating and limits equal to or higher than the 30-minute AEO power rating, the test time performed at the continuous OEI rating may be credited toward the 25-hour requirement. However, test time spent at other rating elements of the test, such as takeoff or other OEI ratings (that may be equal to or higher), may not be counted toward the 25 hours of required running. Therefore, special conditions are issued under the provisions of 14 CFR 11.19, 21.16, and 21.17(a)(2).

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine model. Should LHTEC apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate 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 the CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine. It is not a rule of general applicability and applies only to LHTEC, who requested FAA approval of this engine feature.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Engines, 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 Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for LHTEC, CTS800-4AT turboshaft engine model.

    In addition to the requirements of § 1.1, the following definition applies to this special condition: “Rated 30-minute all engines operating (AEO) power means the approved brake horsepower developed under static conditions at the specified altitude and temperature, and within the operating limitations under part 33, and limited in use to periods not exceeding 30 minutes each.”

    In addition to the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR part 33, the following special conditions apply:

    (a) Sections 33.1, Applicability and 33.3, General. As applicable, all documentation, testing and analysis required to comply with the part 33 type certification basis must account for the 30-minute AEO power rating, limits, and usage.

    (b) Section 33.4, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. In addition to the requirements of § 33.4, the ICA must:

    (1) Include instructions to ensure that in-service engine deterioration due to the rated 30-minute AEO power usage will not exceed that assumed for establishing the engine maintenance program and all other approved ratings, including OEI, are available (within associated limits and assumed usage) for every flight.

    (2) Validate the adequacy of the maintenance actions required under paragraph (b)(1) of this special condition.

    (3) Include in the airworthiness limitations section any mandatory inspections and serviceability limits related to the use of the 30-minute AEO power rating.

    (c) Section 33.7, Engine ratings and operating limitations. In addition to the ratings provided in § 33.7(a) and (c), a rated 30-minute AEO power and operating limitations are established relating to the following:

    (1) Horsepower, torque, shaft speed (r.p.m), and gas temperature.

    (2) The rated 30-minute AEO power and associated limitations must not exceed the rated takeoff power and associated limitations.

    (d) Section 33.29, Instrument connection. If dependence is placed on instrumentation needed to monitor the rating's use, the applicant must make provision for the installation of that instrumentation, specify the provisions for instrumentation in the engine installation instructions, and declare them mandatory in the engine approval documentation.

    (e) Section 33.87, Endurance test. In addition to the requirements of § 33.87(a) and (d), the overall test run must include a minimum of 25 hours of operation at rated 30-minute AEO power and limits, divided into periods of not less than 30 minutes, but not more than 60 minutes at rated 30-minute AEO power, and alternate periods at maximum continuous power or less.

    (1) Each § 33.87(d) continuous OEI rating test period of 60 minutes duration, run at power and limits equal to or higher than the 30-minute AEO power rating, may be credited toward this requirement. Note that the test time required for the takeoff or other OEI ratings may not be counted toward the 25 hours of testing required at the 30-minute AEO power rating.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 15, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27774 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31171; Amdt. No. 3780] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 26, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    For Examination

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

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

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

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    The Rule

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

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

    * * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC date State City Airport FDC No. FDC date Subject 1-Feb-18 CA Santa Maria Santa Maria Pub/Capt G Allan Hancock Fld 7/0260 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 ID Idaho Falls Idaho Falls Rgnl 7/0469 12/6/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 20, Amdt 11H. 1-Feb-18 ID Idaho Falls Idaho Falls Rgnl 7/0562 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 20, Amdt 1C. 1-Feb-18 PA Lock Haven William T Piper Memorial 7/1509 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 IN Gary Gary/Chicago Intl 7/1676 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30, Amdt 1A. 1-Feb-18 AK Palmer Palmer Muni 7/2504 12/4/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2. 1-Feb-18 AK Grayling Grayling 7/2532 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig. 1-Feb-18 MO Monroe City Capt Ben Smith Airfield—Monroe City 7/2581 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig. 1-Feb-18 MO Monroe City Capt Ben Smith Airfield—Monroe City 7/2583 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig. 1-Feb-18 MO Monroe City Capt Ben Smith Airfield—Monroe City 7/2584 12/4/17 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2. 1-Feb-18 FL Vero Beach Vero Beach Muni 7/2660 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 FL Vero Beach Vero Beach Muni 7/2661 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 12R, Amdt 2B. 1-Feb-18 FL Vero Beach Vero Beach Muni 7/2664 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 FL Vero Beach Vero Beach Muni 7/2666 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30L, Amdt 2B. 1-Feb-18 FL Vero Beach Vero Beach Muni 7/2668 12/4/17 VOR RWY 12R, AMDT 14C. 1-Feb-18 FL Vero Beach Vero Beach Muni 7/2670 12/4/17 VOR/DME RWY 30L, Amdt 4B. 1-Feb-18 AR Pine Bluff Grider Field 7/2693 12/6/17 VOR/DME RWY 36, Amdt 12A. 1-Feb-18 AR Pine Bluff Grider Field 7/2694 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 AR Pine Bluff Grider Field 7/2697 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 AR Pine Bluff Grider Field 7/2700 12/6/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 3B. 1-Feb-18 AR Pine Bluff Grider Field 7/2702 12/6/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig. 1-Feb-18 WI Baraboo Baraboo Wisconsin Dells 7/2704 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 WI Baraboo Baraboo Wisconsin Dells 7/2705 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 2. 1-Feb-18 WI Baraboo Baraboo Wisconsin Dells 7/2707 12/4/17 VOR-A, Amdt 12. 1-Feb-18 WI Baraboo Baraboo Wisconsin Dells 7/2709 12/4/17 LOC/DME RWY 1, Amdt 2. 1-Feb-18 WI Baraboo Baraboo Wisconsin Dells 7/2712 12/6/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1. 1-Feb-18 GA Augusta Augusta Rgnl At Bush Field 7/2715 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2B. 1-Feb-18 IA Cedar Rapids The Eastern Iowa 7/2724 12/6/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 6E. 1-Feb-18 MN Rushford Rushford Muni 7/2744 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig. 1-Feb-18 MN Rushford Rushford Muni 7/2745 12/4/17 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2. 1-Feb-18 MN Rushford Rushford Muni 7/2747 12/4/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2. 1-Feb-18 AL Monroeville Monroe County 7/2764 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 AL Monroeville Monroe County 7/2765 12/4/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig. 1-Feb-18 AL Monroeville Monroe County 7/2766 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-C. 1-Feb-18 AL Monroeville Monroe County 7/2767 12/4/17 VOR RWY 21, Amdt 10A. 1-Feb-18 AL Monroeville Monroe County 7/2769 12/4/17 VOR RWY 3, Amdt 10A. 1-Feb-18 MO St Louis Spirit Of St Louis 7/2772 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 26L, Orig-C. 1-Feb-18 MO St Louis Spirit Of St Louis 7/2780 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8R, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 AR Newport Newport Muni 7/2783 12/4/17 VOR/DME RWY 18, Amdt 4A. 1-Feb-18 AR Newport Newport Muni 7/2784 12/4/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig. 1-Feb-18 AR Newport Newport Muni 7/2786 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig 1-Feb-18 AR Newport Newport Muni 7/2790 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig. 1-Feb-18 NC Winston Salem Smith Reynolds 7/2880 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 OK Muskogee Davis Field 7/2888 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 OK Muskogee Davis Field 7/2890 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 OK Muskogee Davis Field 7/2892 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1C. 1-Feb-18 OK Muskogee Davis Field 7/2896 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 CO Denver Denver Intl 7/3082 12/6/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34L, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 NY New York Long Island Mac Arthur 7/3146 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2A. 1-Feb-18 NY New York Long Island Mac Arthur 7/3149 12/6/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 25. 1-Feb-18 CO Denver Denver Intl 7/3175 12/6/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34R, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 CO Denver Denver Intl 7/3176 12/6/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17R, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 CO Denver Denver Intl 7/3178 12/6/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16R, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 CO Denver Denver Intl 7/3179 12/6/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17L, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 CO Denver Denver Intl 7/3180 12/6/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35L, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 CO Denver Denver Intl 7/3181 12/6/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35R, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 CO Denver Denver Intl 7/3182 12/6/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16L, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 MA Provincetown Provincetown Muni 7/3526 12/5/17 NDB RWY 25, Amdt 2B. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3610 12/5/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16R, Amdt 1A. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3611 12/5/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16L, Amdt 1A. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3613 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) X RWY 16R, Amdt 1C. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3614 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) X RWY 16L, Amdt 1C. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3615 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) X RWY 34R, Amdt 1. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3616 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) X RWY 34L, Amdt 1. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3617 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34L, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3618 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34R, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3619 12/5/17 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 34L, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3620 12/5/17 VOR-D, Amdt 7. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3621 12/5/17 ILS X OR LOC X RWY 16R, Orig. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3622 12/5/17 ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 16R, Orig. 1-Feb-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 7/3623 12/5/17 LOC Y RWY 16R, Orig.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27680 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31168; Amdt. No. 3777] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 26, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    For Examination

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

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

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

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    The Rule

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 4 January 2018 Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34L, Amdt 7F Effective 1 February 2018 Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, ILS RWY 15, Amdt 6D Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7L, Amdt 2D Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 2D Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 7R, Amdt 4D Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (RNP) RWY 33, Orig-C Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 7R, Orig-C Klawock, AK, Klawock, KLAWOCK TWO, Graphic DP Prattville, AL, Prattville—Grouby Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 2E Helena/West Helena, AR, Thompson-Robbins, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1 Helena/West Helena, AR, Thompson-Robbins, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1 Helena/West Helena, AR, Thompson-Robbins, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1 Merced, CA, Merced Rgnl/Macready Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-B Red Bluff, CA, Red Bluff Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-A Pahokee, FL, Palm Beach Co Glades, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1 Pahokee, FL, Palm Beach Co Glades, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1 Pahokee, FL, Palm Beach Co Glades, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Pahokee, FL, Palm Beach Co Glades, VOR/DME-A, Orig-A, SUSPENDED Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 13 Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, LOC BC RWY 22, Amdt 8A, CANCELED Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1C Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1B Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1B Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY34, Amdt 2B Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, VOR RWY 16, Amdt 27B Independence, KS, Independence Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 2 Independence, KS, Independence Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2 Independence, KS, Independence Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1 Independence, KS, Independence Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 3 Pittsburg, KS, Atkinson Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 3 Pittsburg, KS, Atkinson Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1C Pittsburg, KS, Atkinson Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 3 Pittsburg, KS, Atkinson Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Topeka, KS, Philip Billard Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Saginaw, MI, MBS Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 11 Saginaw, MI, MBS Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 5 Saginaw, MI, MBS Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 2 Saginaw, MI, MBS Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 2 Saginaw, MI, MBS Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 2 Saginaw, MI, MBS Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2 Saginaw, MI, MBS Intl, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 14 Glencoe, MN, Glencoe Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-A St Joseph, MO, Rosecrans Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Lovelock, NV, Derby Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1A Prineville, OR, Prineville, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 2 Prineville, OR, Prineville, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 2 Norfolk, VA, Norfolk Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 26C Norfolk, VA, Norfolk Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 8 Norfolk, VA, Norfolk Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1 Norfolk, VA, Norfolk Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 5, Amdt 2 Norfolk, VA, Norfolk Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 23, Amdt 2 Norfolk, VA, Norfolk Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 5, Amdt 1 Norfolk, VA, Norfolk Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 23, Amdt 1 Norfolk, VA, Norfolk Intl, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 3

    RESCINDED: On November 20, 2017 (82 FR 55047), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 31161, Amdt No. 3771 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.37. The following entry for Buckland, AK, and Billings, MT, effective December 7, 2017, are hereby rescinded in its entirety:

    Buckland, AK, Buckland, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7A
    [FR Doc. 2017-27676 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31169; Amdt. No. 3778] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 26, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    For Examination

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

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

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

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    The Rule

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

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

    * * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC
  • date
  • State City Airport FDC No. FDC date Subject
    1-Feb-18 ND Grand Forks Grand Forks Intl 7/0618 11/28/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, Amdt 12A. 1-Feb-18 AK Palmer Palmer Muni 7/1266 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 AK Palmer Palmer Muni 7/1268 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 IL Moline Quad City Intl 7/1731 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 IL Moline Quad City Intl 7/1733 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 OR Corvallis Corvallis Muni 7/2996 11/28/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 17, Amdt 4. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/3029 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Amdt 2C. 1-Feb-18 IL Belleville Scott AFB/MidAmerica 7/4638 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32R, Orig-D. 1-Feb-18 TX Beaumont/Port Arthur Jack Brooks Rgnl 7/4714 11/28/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 12, Amdt 23B. 1-Feb-18 CT Groton (New London) Groton-New London 7/5034 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-E. 1-Feb-18 OK Perry Perry Muni 7/5421 11/28/17 VOR/DME RWY 17, Amdt 3B. 1-Feb-18 MT Stevensville Stevensville 7/6446 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-C. 1-Feb-18 ND Rolla Rolla Muni 7/6537 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7200 11/28/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 11, Amdt 2D. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7201 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig-E. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7204 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Amdt 1D. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7208 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) X RWY 29, Orig. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7210 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 4R, Amdt 1E. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7211 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 22L, Amdt 2A. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7214 11/28/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, ILS RWY 22L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 22L (CAT II AND III), Amdt 13B. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7218 11/28/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, ILS RWY 4R (CAT II AND III), Amdt 13. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7220 11/28/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 4L, ILS RWY 4L (SA CAT I AND II), Amdt 15. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7225 11/28/17 VOR RWY 11, Amdt 2D. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/7316 11/28/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 22R, Amdt 6A. 1-Feb-18 PA Reedsville Mifflin County 7/7469 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 TX Pecos Pecos Muni 7/9148 11/28/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/9751 11/28/17 GLS RWY 22R, Orig-D. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/9752 11/28/17 GLS RWY 22L, Orig-C. 1-Feb-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 7/9753 11/28/17 GLS RWY 4L, Orig-D. 1-Feb-18 MD Easton Easton/Newnam Field 7/9798 11/28/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 2.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27677 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31170; Amdt. No. 3779] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 26, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    For Examination

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

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

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

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    The Rule

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me,

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

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

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

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 1 February 2018 Buckland, AK, Buckland, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Sitka, AK, Sitka Rocky Gutierrez, BIORKA FOUR, Graphic DP Atmore, AL, Atmore Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2 Atmore, AL, Atmore Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2 Atmore, AL, Atmore Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Helena/West Helena, AR, Thompson-Robbins, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 San Martin, CA, San Martin, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-C Santa Monica, CA, Santa Monica Muni, TOPANGA TWO, Graphic DP Stockton, CA, Stockton Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11L, Amdt 1A Stockton, CA, Stockton Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29R, Amdt 1A Vacaville, CA, Nut Tree, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1A Burlington, CO, Kit Carson County, LOC RWY 33, Amdt 1 Burlington, CO, Kit Carson County, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 2 Burlington, CO, Kit Carson County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1 Burlington, CO, Kit Carson County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, ILS RWY 35L (SA CAT II), Amdt 39 Rifle, CO, Rifle Garfield County, SQUAT FOUR, Graphic DP Rifle, CO, Rifle Garfield County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 11 West Palm Beach, FL, North Palm Beach County General Aviation, ILS OR LOC RWY 9R, Amdt 2 West Palm Beach, FL, North Palm Beach County General Aviation, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9R, Amdt 2 West Palm Beach, FL, North Palm Beach County General Aviation, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1 West Palm Beach, FL, North Palm Beach County General Aviation, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L, Amdt 2 West Palm Beach, FL, North Palm Beach County General Aviation, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 West Palm Beach, FL, North Palm Beach County General Aviation, VOR RWY 8R, Amdt 1D, CANCELED Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 1 Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 10 Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, ILS RWY 31 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 31 (CAT II), ILS RWY 31 (CAT III), Amdt 24 Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 2 Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2 Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1 Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2 Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 11A Topeka, KS, Topeka Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 10 Topeka, KS, Topeka Rgnl, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 7C, CANCELED Wichita, KS, Colonel James Jabara, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Orig-B Jackson, MI, Jackson County-Reynolds Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 South St Paul, MN, South St Paul Muni-Richard E Fleming Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 2 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28R, Amdt 3 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 10L, Amdt 26 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, NDB RWY 10L, Amdt 19A, CANCELED Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 2 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10L, Amdt 4 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 2 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28R, Amdt 4 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28R, Amdt 1 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7A Twin Bridges, MT, Twin Bridges, BRIDGES ONE, Graphic DP Twin Bridges, MT, Twin Bridges, DILLON ONE, Graphic DP Twin Bridges, MT, Twin Bridges, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig Twin Bridges, MT, Twin Bridges, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig Twin Bridges, MT, Twin Bridges, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Bismarck, ND, Bismarck Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 34 Columbus, OH, John Glenn Columbus Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28L, Amdt 3D Columbus, OH, John Glenn Columbus Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28L, Amdt 1C Eugene, OR, Mahlon Sweet Field, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16R, Amdt 2A Eugene, OR, Mahlon Sweet Field, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34R, Amdt 3A Eugene, OR, Mahlon Sweet Field, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16R, Amdt 1A The Dalles, OR, Columbia Gorge Rgnl/The Dalles Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1A Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9L, Amdt 4D Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 26, Amdt 4C Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27L, Amdt 14A Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, ILS RWY 27R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 27R (SA CAT II), Amdt 10G Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS V RWY 17, Amdt 6C (CONVERGING) Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS Z OR LOC RWY 17, Amdt 8B Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 9R, ILS Z RWY 9R (SA CAT I), ILS Z RWY 9R (CAT II), ILS Z RWY 9R (CAT III), Amdt 10A Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 3B Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1C Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L, Amdt 3A Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Amdt 1C Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 4A Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 9L, Amdt 1B Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 9R, Amdt 3A Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 9L, Orig-D Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 9R, Orig-D Pittsburgh, PA, Allegheny County, ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 7 Sumter, SC, Sumter, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 1 Sumter, SC, Sumter, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1 Sumter, SC, Sumter, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 23, Amdt 1, CANCELED College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 34, Amdt 14 College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, LOC BC RWY 16, Amdt 8 College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1C College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1B College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1A College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1B College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, VOR RWY 28, Amdt 14 College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, VOR OR TACAN RWY 10, Amdt 19D Laredo, TX, Laredo Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18R, Amdt 12 Laredo, TX, Laredo Intl, LOC BC RWY 36L, Amdt 3 Laredo, TX, Laredo Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1 Laredo, TX, Laredo Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18L, Amdt 1 Laredo, TX, Laredo Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18R, Amdt 2 Laredo, TX, Laredo Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2 Laredo, TX, Laredo Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36L, Amdt 3 Provo, UT, Provo Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 4 Rock Springs, WY, Rock Springs-Sweetwater County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-A Rock Springs, WY, Rock Springs-Sweetwater County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1B

    RESCINDED: On December 4, 2017 (82 FR 57115), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 31166, Amdt No. 3775, to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.23, 97.29, and 97.33. The following entries for Price, UT, effective February 1, 2018, are hereby rescinded in their entirety:

    Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 1, Amdt 1B Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 2B Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, VOR RWY 1, Amdt 1B
    [FR Doc. 2017-27679 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 19 CFR Part 201 Rules of General Application AGENCY:

    International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) amends provisions of its Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning the Privacy Act. The amendment is designed to delete certain exemptions that pertain only to systems of records that the Commission has removed and to add exemptions that pertain to a new system of records.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective January 25, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, telephone (202) 205-2000, or Clara Kuehn, Office of the General Counsel, telephone (202) 205-3012, United States International Trade Commission. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. This rulemaking amends provisions of the Commission's existing Rules of Practice and Procedure that concern the Privacy Act.

    On September 27, 2017, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register. 82 FR 44982, September 27, 2017. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to revise 19 CFR 201.32, which governs exemptions to certain Privacy Act requirements. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), the Commission proposed to delete two exemptions that pertain only to Privacy Act systems of records that were being removed, add exemptions for a new Privacy Act system of records, and correct a typographical error.

    In the NPRM, the Commission requested public comment on the proposed revisions to its rules, but no comments were received. The Commission found no reason to change the proposed rules before adopting them as final rules, which are republished below. A more detailed analysis of the rules can be found at 82 FR 44982 (September 27, 2017).

    Regulatory Analysis of Amendments to the Commission's Rules

    The Commission certifies that these amendments to the Commission's rules 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.) because it does not create an economic impact and does not affect small entities. The amendments are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Commission.

    The amendments to the Commission's rules do not contain any information collection requirements subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    No actions are necessary under title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) because the amendments to the Commission's rules will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    The Commission has determined that these rules do not meet the criteria described in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and thus do not constitute a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of the Executive Order.

    The amendments to the Commission's rules do not have Federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

    The amendments to the Commission's rules are not “major rules” as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).

    List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 201

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1335, the United States International Trade Commission amends 19 CFR part 201 as follows:

    PART 201—RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 1335; 19 U.S.C. 2482, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 201.32, remove paragraphs (a) and (b); redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (a); revise the first sentence of newly redesignated paragraph (a); and add paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 201.32 Specific exemptions.

    (a) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (5) and (6), records contained in the system entitled “Personnel Security Investigative Files” have been exempted from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I) and (f) of the Privacy Act. * * *

    (b) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), records contained in the system entitled “Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Records” have been exempted from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I) and (f) of the Privacy Act. Pursuant to section 552a(k)(1) of the Privacy Act, the Commission exempts records that contain properly classified information pertaining to national defense or foreign policy. Application of exemption (k)(1) may be necessary to preclude individuals' access to or amendment of such classified information under the Privacy Act. Pursuant to section 552a(k)(2) of the Privacy Act, and in order to protect the effectiveness of Inspector General investigations by preventing individuals who may be the subject of an investigation from obtaining access to the records and thus obtaining the opportunity to conceal or destroy evidence or to intimidate witnesses, the Commission exempts records insofar as they include investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. However, if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit to which he is otherwise entitled under Federal law due to the maintenance of this material, such material shall be provided to such individual except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 19, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27671 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 868 [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6568] Medical Devices; Anesthesiology Devices; Classification of the External Negative Pressure Airway Aid AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the external negative pressure airway aid into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the external negative pressure airway aid's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.

    DATES:

    This order is effective December 26, 2017. The classification was applicable on December 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Courtney, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2530, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6371, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Upon request, FDA has classified the external negative pressure airway aid as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.

    The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

    FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).

    FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.

    Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).

    Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.

    Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.

    We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

    II. De Novo Classification

    On August 18, 2014, Sommetrics submitted a request for De Novo classification of the cNEP Airway Management System. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.

    We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    Therefore, on December 23, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 868.5105. We have named the generic type of device external negative pressure airway aid, and it is identified as a prescription device that applies negative pressure to a patient's neck to aid in providing a patent airway during procedures requiring anesthesia.

    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

    Table 1—External Negative Pressure Airway Aid Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risks Mitigation measures Impaired blood flow Clinical performance testing. Failure of device or negative pressure mechanism Non-clinical performance testing. Adverse tissue reaction Biocompatibility. Dislodging of plaque, leading to possible stroke Labeling. Inadequate collar fit Labeling. Use error Labeling.

    FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.

    At the time of classification, external negative pressure airway aids are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met.

    III. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other 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 the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 868

    Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 868 is amended as follows:

    PART 868—ANESTHESIOLOGY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 868 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

    2. Add § 868.5105 to subpart F to read as follows:
    § 868.5105 External negative pressure airway aid.

    (a) Identification. An external negative pressure airway aid is a prescription device that applies negative pressure to a patient's neck to aid in providing a patent airway during procedures requiring anesthesia.

    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

    (1) Clinical performance testing must document any adverse events observed during clinical use, including impaired blood flow, and demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions.

    (2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated patient positions, does not fail during use, and does not lose negative pressure capability. The following testing should be performed:

    (i) Ability of the device to maintain a seal during various patient positions;

    (ii) Device leakage testing to demonstrate the device maintains vacuum;

    (iii) Drop testing to ensure the device does not incur functional damage after dropping the device; and

    (iv) Functional testing after high and low storage temperature.

    (3) All patient contacting components must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    (4) Labeling must include:

    (i) A summary of clinical testing results, including any adverse events and evidence that effectiveness has been achieved.

    (ii) Technical specifications of the device, including collar sizes, maximum duration of use, operating temperature, and storage temperature range.

    (iii) Technical specifications of the vacuum source, including maximum vacuum level and operational vacuum level.

    (iv) Instructions for use that includes how to place the device, determination of size, verification of suction, reference to training materials, and information on troubleshooting the device if it does not attach properly.

    (v) A warning to screen patients for carotid artery disease due to the probable risk of the device to dislodge arterial plaques in the carotid artery.

    (vi) A warning to exclude patients with anatomical abnormalities.

    (vii) A warning not to use the device during medical procedures involving medications that contain propofol.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27784 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS TULSA (LCS 16) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 26, 2017 and is applicable beginning December 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone number: 202-685-5040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

    This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS TULSA (LCS 16) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I paragraph 2 (a)(i), pertaining to the height of the forward masthead light above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead light; Rule 27(b)(i) and Annex I, paragraph 9(b)(i), pertaining to the arc of visibility of middle tasks lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

    Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended by: a. In Table One, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS TULSA (LCS 16); b. In Table Four, under paragraph 15, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS TULSA (LCS 16); c. In Table Four, under paragraph 16, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS TULSA (LCS 16); d. In Table Four, under paragraph 27, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS TULSA (LCS 16); and e. In Table Five, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS TULSA (LCS 16).
    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table One Vessel Number Distance in meters of
  • forward masthead
  • light below minimum
  • required height
  • § 2(a)(i) Annex I
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS TULSA LCS 16 4.2 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Four

    15. * * *

    Vessel Number Horizontal distances from the fore and aft centerline of the vessel in the
  • athwartship direction
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS TULSA LCS 16 Upper—0.20 meters.
  • Middle—1.32 meters.
  • Lower—1.40 meters.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         

    16. * * *

    Vessel Number Obstruction angle relative ship's headings *         *         *         *         *         *          USS TULSA LCS 16 72° thru 74°.
  • 286° thru 288°.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         

    27. * * *

    Vessel Number Obstruction angle relative ship heading *         *         *         *         *         *          USS TULSA LCS 16 47° thru 59°.
  • 301° thru 313°.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         
    Table Five Vessel Number Mastheadlights not over all other lights and
  • obstructions
  • annex I, sec. 2(f)
  • Forward masthead light not in forward
  • quarter of ship
  • annex I, sec. 3(a)
  • After masthead light less than 1/2 ship's length aft of forward
  • masthead light
  • annex I, sec. 3(a)
  • Percentage horizontal
  • separation attained
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS TULSA LCS 16 X X 15.0 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Approved: December 7, 2017. A.S. Janin, Captain, USN, JAGC, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). Dated: December 13, 2017. E.K. Baldini, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27759 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0967] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Alligator River, Columbia, NC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US 64/Alligator River Bridge which carries US 64 over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW), Alligator River, mile 84.2, near Columbia, NC. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from December 26, 2017 through 6 p.m. on March 29, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on November 6, 2017, until December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0967, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 1, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Alligator River, Columbia, NC” in the Federal Register (82 FR 50577). That document resulted from North Carolina Department of Transportation's request for a temporary deviation, occurring from 7 a.m. on November 6, 2017, through 7 p.m. on November 17, 2017, from normal operation of the drawbridge to facilitate bridge maintenance. Subsequent to the approval of that request, North Carolina Department of Transportation requested a modification, extending the temporary deviation from 7:01 p.m. on November 17, 2017, through 6 p.m. on March 29, 2018, to allow more time to perform and complete additional bridge maintenance discovered during the previous temporary deviation. Therefore, through this document, the Coast Guard modifies the dates of the previously approved temporary deviation to allow the US 64/Alligator River Bridge that carries US 64 over the AICW, Alligator River, mile 84.2, at near Columbia, NC, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., on Wednesday, December 27, 2017, through Saturday, December 30, 2017; Monday, January 1, 2018, through Saturday, January 5, 2018; and Monday, January 8, 2018, through Tuesday, January 9, 2018. During these closure periods the bridge will open on signal, if at least 2 hours notice is given. The bridge will also remain in the closed-to-navigation position 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, from 6 a.m. on Wednesday, January 10, 2018, through 6 p.m. on Wednesday, January 17, 2018; and from 6 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14, 2018, through 6 p.m. on Wednesday, March 21, 2018. Alternative work dates for these closure periods will be from noon on Thursday, January 18, 2018, through 6 p.m. on Wednesday, January 24, 2018; and from noon on Thursday, March 22, 2018, through 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 29, 2018. If the alternative work dates from noon on Thursday, January 18, 2018, through 6 p.m. on Wednesday, January 24, 2018 are used, the bridge will also remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, from January 22, 2018, through March 14, 2018; except for scheduled daily openings at noon, if at least 2 hours notice is given. If the alternative work dates from noon on Thursday, January 18, 2018, through 6 p.m. on Wednesday, January 24, 2018 are not used, the bridge will also remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, from January 17, 2018, through March 14, 2018; except for scheduled daily openings at noon, if at least 2 hours notice is given. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Broadcast Notices to Mariners, if the alternative work dates will be used. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 14 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited feet above mean high water in the open position. The bridge will open on signal at all other times. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5.

    The AICW, Alligator River is used by a variety of vessels including, small commercial vessels, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. During the closure periods, the bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and the Croatan Sound to the Pamlico Sound can be used as an alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. During the closure periods with scheduled openings at noon, the bridge will be able to open up for emergencies, if at least one hour notice is given. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 18, 2017. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27718 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0695, FRL-9972-39-Region 1] Finding of Failure To Submit a Section 110 State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2012 Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particles; Massachusetts AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action finding that Massachusetts failed to submit an infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) to satisfy certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to the 2012 annual fine particles (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, these requirements pertain to significant contribution to nonattainment, or interference with maintenance, of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. This finding of failure to submit establishes a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the interstate transport SIP requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment, interference with maintenance, interference with Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and interference with visibility protection, unless, prior to the EPA promulgating a FIP, the state submits, and the EPA approves, a SIP that meets these requirements.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on January 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0695. All documents in the dockets are listed on http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alison C. Simcox, Environmental Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1684; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

    Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states have made no submissions or incomplete submissions, to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

    B. How is the Preamble Organized? Table of Contents I. General Information II. Background and Overview A. Interstate Transport SIPs B. Background on the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS III. Finding of Failure To Submit for Massachusetts IV. Environmental Justice Considerations V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews II. Background and Overview A. Interstate Transport SIPs

    CAA section 110(a) imposes an obligation upon states to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of that NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. The EPA refers to this type of SIP submission as the “infrastructure” SIP because it ensures that states can implement, maintain and enforce the air standards. Within these requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains requirements to address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP revision submitted for this sub-section is referred to as an “interstate transport SIP.” In turn, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that such a plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from the state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (“prong 1”) or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (“prong 2”). Section 110(a)(2)(D(i)(II) requires that such a plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from the state that will interfere with measures required of any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (“prong 3”) or that will interfere with measures required of any other state to protect visibility (“prong 4”). These are the requirements relevant to this finding.

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the EPA must determine no later than six months after the date by which a state is required to submit a SIP whether a state has made a submission that meets the minimum completeness criteria established per section 110(k)(1)(A). The EPA refers to the determination that a state has not submitted a SIP submission that meets the minimum completeness criteria as a “finding of failure to submit.” If the EPA finds a state has failed to submit a SIP to meet its statutory obligation to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), pursuant to section 110(c)(1) the EPA has not only the authority, but the obligation, to promulgate a FIP within two years to address the CAA requirement. This finding therefore starts a two-year clock for promulgation by the EPA of a FIP, in accordance with section 110(c)(1), unless prior to such promulgation the state submits, and the EPA approves, a submittal to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA will work with the state subject to this finding of failure to submit and provide assistance as necessary to help the state develop an approvable submittal in a timely manner. The EPA notes this action does not start a mandatory sanctions clock pursuant to CAA section 179 because this finding of failure to submit does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to section 110(k)(5).

    B. Background on the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased protection of public health and welfare from fine particle pollution.1 In that action, the EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 standard, strengthening it from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12.0 μg/m3, which is attained when the three-year average of the annual arithmetic means does not exceed 12.0 μg/m3. Infrastructure SIPs addressing the revised standard were due on December 14, 2015. CAA § 110(a)(1).

    1 78 FR 3086; January 15, 2013.

    III. Finding of Failure To Submit for Massachusetts

    To date, Massachusetts has not submitted a good neighbor SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA is issuing a finding that Massachusetts has failed to submit a SIP addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) (prongs 1-4), for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This notice is making a procedural finding that Massachusetts has failed to submit a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA did not conduct an environmental analysis for this rule, because this rule would not directly affect the air emissions from particular sources. Because this rule will not directly affect the air emissions from particular sources, it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Therefore, this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.

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

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

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

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This final rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is already required by law.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements, because the agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in the CAA under section 110(a) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule responds to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under section 110(a) to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 110(a) within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations, because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The EPA's evaluation of environmental justice considerations is contained in section IV of this notice.

    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    M. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 26, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 11, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27625 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0509; FRL-9972-52-Region 3] Full Withdrawal of Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the October 26, 2017 direct final rule (DFR) that approved a negative declaration submitted by the City of Philadelphia. The negative declaration certified that no existing sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units exist within the City of Philadelphia. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comments by November 27, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received an adverse comment. This withdrawal action is being taken under sections 129 and 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    The direct final rule published at 82 FR 49511 on October 26, 2017, is withdrawn effective December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0509 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mike Gordon, (215) 814-2039, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Philadelphia Air Management Services submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA certifying on March 28, 2012 that there are no SSI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA in its respective air pollution control jurisdiction. The negative declaration letter and EPA's technical support document for this action are available in the docket for this rulemaking and available online at www.regulations.gov.

    Please see additional information provided in the direct final action published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2017 (82 FR 49511) and in the companion proposed rule which was also published on October 26, 2017 (82 FR 49563). In the DFR, we stated that if we received adverse comment by November 27, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received an adverse comment. EPA will address the comment received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on October 26, 2017. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. As a result of the comment received, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule approving the negative declaration submitted by the City of Philadelphia for existing SSI units.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: December 15, 2017. Cosmo Servidio Regional Administrator, Region III. Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 62.9665, published on October 26, 2017 (82 FR 49511), are withdrawn effective December 26, 2017.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27795 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0484; FRL-9972-55-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Municipal Waste Combustors; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the November 6, 2017 direct final rule (DFR) that approved revisions to the State of Maryland's Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d)/129 State Plan for municipal waste combustors (MWCs). The revisions contain Maryland's amendments to Regulations .07 and .08 under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.08. This withdrawal action is being taken under sections 129 and 111(d) of the CAA.

    DATES:

    The direct final rule published at 82 FR 51350 on November 6, 2017 is withdrawn effective December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0484 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Linn, (215) 814-5273, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 10, 2016, the State of Maryland submitted a formal revision (MD Submittal #16-05) to its CAA section 111(d)/129 State Plan for MWCs. The revisions contain Maryland's amendments to COMAR 26.11.08, “Requirements for an Existing Large MWC with a Capacity Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day.” These amendments update the MWC references to opacity compliance previously made by the Maryland Department of the Environment. The Maryland state submittal is available in the docket for this rulemaking and available online at www.regulations.gov.

    Please see additional information provided in the direct final action published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2017 (82 FR 51350) and in the companion proposed rule which was also published on November 6, 2017 (82 FR 51380). In the DFR, we stated that if we received adverse comment by December 6, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received an adverse comment. As a result of the comment received, EPA is withdrawing the DFR approving the revisions submitted by the State of Maryland to their CAA section 111(d)/129 State Plan for MWCs. EPA will address the comment received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on November 6, 2017. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: December 15, 2017. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III. Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 62.5110 and 40 CFR 62.5112, published on November 6, 2017 (82 FR 51350), are withdrawn effective December 26, 2017.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27796 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9972-44-OAR] RIN 2060-AT13 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin Lines Technology Review and Revision of Flame Attenuation Lines Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action completes the final residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category regulated under the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In this action, the EPA is readopting the existing emission limits for formaldehyde, establishing emission limits for methanol, and a work practice standard for phenol emissions from bonded rotary spin (RS) lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. In addition, the EPA is revising the emission standards promulgated on July 29, 2015, for flame attenuation (FA) lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities by creating three subcategories of FA lines and establishing emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol emissions, and either emission limits or work practice standards for phenol emissions for each subcategory of FA lines.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this final action, contact Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected] For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (312) 353-6266; and email address: ayres.sara @epa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

    BDL below the detection limit CAA Clean Air Act CBI confidential business information CD-ROM Compact Disc Read-Only Memory CDX Central Data Exchange CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERT Electronic Reporting Tool FA flame attenuation FR Federal Register HAP hazardous air pollutants(s) ICR information collection request lbs/ton pounds per ton MACT maximum achievable control technology NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget PF phenol-formaldehyde ppmv parts per million by volume PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RS rotary spin RTR Risk and Technology Review tpy tons per year TTN Technology Transfer Network UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL upper prediction limit

    Background information. On August 29, 2017, the EPA proposed revisions to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP based on our technology review of the source category's bonded RS lines. In addition, the proposal included certain revisions to the July 29, 2015, emission standards for the bonded FA lines. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the document titled, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN)—Technology Review, Final Amendments: Response to Public Comments on August 29, 2017 Proposal, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042). A “track changes” version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is also available in the docket.

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? C. What changes did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our August 29, 2017, notice? III. What is included in this final rule? A. What are the final rule amendments for formaldehyde emissions from RS lines based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category? B. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category? C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category? D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category? A. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category B. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(h) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category D. Amendments for FA Lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category E. Other Amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Table 1 includes the categories and entities potentially regulated by this action.

    Table 1—NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action NESHAP and source
  • category
  • NAICS 1 code
    Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 327993 1 North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wool-fiberglass-manufacturing-national-emissions-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same website.

    Additional information is available on the RTR website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as inputs to the risk assessments.

    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 26, 2018. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above.

    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this review, the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (DC Cir. 2013). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).1 Additionally, CAA section 112(h) allows the agency to adopt a work practice standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard only if it is “not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant.” This phrase is defined as applying where “the Administrator determines that the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” CAA section 112(h)(1) and (2).

    1 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008) (“If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.”).

    In this action, the EPA is finalizing the technology review for RS lines in accordance with section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In addition, the EPA is amending certain emission standards promulgated on July 29, 2015, for FA lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

    B. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category consists of facilities that produce wool fiberglass from sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, or any other materials. This source category currently comprises three wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities operating bonded RS lines, and two facilities operating bonded FA lines. The EPA is not currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed bonded RS or FA lines.

    On July 29, 2015, we published the final rule amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP resulting from our completion of certain aspects of the CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk review and the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for that NESHAP RTR. 80 FR 45280. Specifically, the July 29, 2015, final rule:

    • Established a chromium emission limit for gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces under CAA section 112(f)(2);

    • Revised the particulate matter emission limit for gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces at major sources under CAA section 112(d)(6);

    • Established work practice standards for hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride emissions from glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h);

    • Eliminated the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate and established revised limits for formaldehyde and first-time limits for methanol and phenol emitted from FA lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3);

    • Eliminated FA line subcategories;

    • Removed the exemption for startup and shutdown periods and established work practice standards that apply during startup and shutdown periods; and

    • Established chromium emission limits for both new and existing gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces at area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(d)(5).

    In the July 2015 rule, we did not finalize proposed emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions from forming, cooling, and collection processes on bonded RS lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We explained that this decision was based on comments we received on our various proposals indicating that the proposed limits likely relied on incorrect data. We explained that we had issued an Information Collection Request (ICR) under CAA section 114 for purposes of obtaining the requisite data. 80 FR 45293.

    C. What changes did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our August 29, 2017, notice?

    On August 29, 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, that took into consideration the new data received in response to the ICR. We also explained that since our July 29, 2015, final rule, we had received new information and data from a facility that operates FA lines that cast doubts on information and data that the agency relied on in promulgating the July 2015 final rule emission limits for FA lines. In the August 29, 2017, Federal Register, we proposed the following:

    • Readopting the formaldehyde emission limits for bonded RS lines that were in the original 1999 NESHAP under CAA section 112(d)(6);

    • Establishing new emission limits for methanol from bonded RS lines under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3);

    • Establishing work practice standards for phenol from bonded RS lines under CAA section 112(h);

    • Amending the incinerator operating limits to include cooling emissions from both RS and FA limits under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3);

    • Establishing new subcategories of FA lines under CAA section 112(d)(1), defined as: (1) Aerospace, Air Filtration, and Pipe Products; (2) Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC); and (3) Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM);

    • Establishing new emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from most of the newly proposed FA line subcategories under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3); and

    • Setting work practice standards for phenol from one newly proposed FA line subcategory under CAA section 112(h).

    III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations, as proposed, pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and amends the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP based on those determinations. This action also finalizes, with minor revisions to our proposals, other changes to the NESHAP, including establishing first-time limits for methanol emissions from forming, cooling, and collection processes on new and existing bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and establishing work practices standards for phenol emissions from forming, cooling, and collection processes on new and existing bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h).

    Additionally, consistent with our proposal, this action finalizes our decision to create three subcategories of FA lines at wool fiberglass manufactuirng facilities based on the type of product that is manufactured. This action also finalizes, as proposed, emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for two of these subcategories, and finalizes emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), and work practices standards for phenol emissions under CAA section 112(h), for the third subcategory.

    A. What are the final rule amendments for formaldehyde emissions from RS lines based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    We are readopting the current emissions standards for formaldehyde from forming, cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(d)(6) as the result of our technology review.

    B. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    Under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), we are establishing emission limits for methanol from forming, cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    We are establishing work practice standards for phenol emissions from combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h).

    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    Other changes to the NESHAP include:

    • Finalizing the proposed subcategories for FA lines and their associated emissions standards for existing, new, and reconstructed bonded FA lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities;

    • Adding an annual operating requirement for designating the appropriate subcategory for FA lines;

    • Clarifying that the Aerospace subcategory includes pipe products;

    • Establishing the compliance period for both RS and FA lines; and

    • Revising the recordkeeping requirement for free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binders.

    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on December 26, 2017. The compliance date for existing RS and FA manufacturing lines is December 26, 2020. New sources must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, December 26, 2017, or upon startup, whichever is later.

    CAA section 112(i)(3) requires that existing sources must comply as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 3 years after promulgation of standards under CAA section 112(d). (“Section 112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to any emissions standard . . . promulgated under CAA [section 112].” Ass'n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (DC Cir. 2013)). Additionally, we may not reset compliance deadlines for revisions that are unaccompanied by changes to a MACT standard. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364, 1374 (DC Cir. 2007) (EPA may not revise compliance deadlines “for compliance with Section 112 standards anytime it adjusts reporting terms.”). This final action reflects our conclusion that sources will need the 3-year period to comply with the various final rule requirements, which are not just reporting requirements. For instance, with regard to FA lines, subcategories have been newly created, and numerical emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol emissions are being promulgated. Thus, owners or operators of affected sources will need to conduct performance tests in order to demonstrate initial compliance with these final standards. Additionally, as explained at proposal, the work practice standards for phenol emisisons from both RS and FA lines call for vendor specifications, which will likely require vendor bids and selections, and the likely institution of new practices to address the final recordkeeping requirements.

    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA?

    As we proposed, the EPA is taking steps to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners or operators of wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.

    Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). A description of the ERT and instructions for using ERT can be found at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX website (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). Once submitted, a performance test report will be available to the public through the EPA WebFIRE database (https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/).

    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website. With electronic reporting, industry will save time in the performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking benefits industry by reducing recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in hard copy.

    State, local, and tribal air agencies may benefit from more streamlined and accurate review of performance test data that will become available to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal.

    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data will save industry, state, local, and tribal air agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort.

    IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses are contained in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action.

    A. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40970), we proposed readopting the current NESHAP emission limits for formaldehyde from forming, cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(d)(6).

    2. How did the technology review change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    We are not changing our technology review findings from the August 29, 2017, proposal.

    3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what are our responses?

    One commenter disagreed with our proposal to readopt the current formaldehyde emission limits for existing and new sources. The commenter stated that the EPA's refusal to increase protections against formaldehyde emissions from RS lines is unlawful and irrational and is not consistent with 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6), which is intended to drive pollution reductions. The commenter said that the EPA's proposal to retain the current NESHAP emission limits for formaldehyde from RS lines, even though the EPA identified developments in practices, processes, and control technologies under the technology review, does not meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6) which requires the EPA to “account” for such developments consistent with the CAA. The commenter asserted that failing to strengthen the emission limits will allow sources to emit at higher levels without consequence, and will remove a strong incentive for the industry to complete the transition to non-phenol formaldehyde (PF) binders.

    We disagree with the commenter. As explained in the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40975), we considered mandating the use of non-PF binders for lines currently using PF binders, and/or mandating the use of non-PF binders for all bonded lines as part of the required CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review. We did not propose this option, however, and, instead, we proposed to readopt the current limits because the source category has already achieved approximately 95-percent reduction in formaldehyde emissions due to the replacement of the PF binders with non-PF binders. We explained that this industry trend would likely continue given industry indications that non-PF binders are less expensive than PF binders and, as also explained at proposal, that cost considerations will move the industry in the direction of complete elimination of PF binders in the absence of regulation. However, as also noted at proposal, the remaining sources that continue to operate RS lines using PF binders manufacture products for customers with specifications that preclude the use of any currently available non-PF binders and, therefore, if PF binders were banned, these facilities would likely no longer be able to produce these products. Furthermore, we noted that mandating non-PF binders would likely be viewed as penalizing sources that continued to utilize PF binders. Therefore, we continue to conclude that it would be inappropriate to ban PF binders at this time. We also explained that our review of the 2015 ICR indicated that all bonded RS lines are equipped with air pollution control devices for formaldehyde emissions as compared to the time of promulgation of the 1999 MACT standards. Specifically, we found that formaldehyde emissions were significantly below the 1999 MACT and we attributed these reductions to both control technologies in use and the phase out of PF binders. We expressed our belief that sources would maintain these control technologies and, thus, that the lower emissions remain somewhat assured, even without our lowering of the existing MACT standards. We continue to believe that sources will maintain control technologies that address formaldehyde emissions from the various processes on RS lines post promulgation of standards that they are already meeting, partly because most (or potentially all) of these sources would likely not be able to comply with the current formaldehyde limits or the new methanol limits without these controls. We also note that because we were confident of the continued use of existing control technologies that achieve formaldehyde emissions reductions that are well below the existing MACT, we also did not propose requiring initial compliance demonstration, but rather proposed to allow sources to use test reports submitted in response to the 2015 ICR as a means of demonstrating initial compliance with the proposed emission limits, when finalized (82 FR 40976). This final rule contains this requirement, as proposed. Additionally, these existing MACT limits are reflected in operating permits for these sources and, thus, remain enforceable until otherwise revised.

    4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology review?

    As noted in the proposal preamble (82 FR 40974), this source category has already achieved approximately 95-percent reduction in formaldehyde emissions due to the replacement of PF binders with non-PF binders. We conclude that the industry will continue this trend without the need for tighter regulation due to cost considerations (i.e., non-PF binders are less expensive than PF binders). Additionally, as explained above, facilities are currently using PF binders because of customers' specifications for certain products and, thus, would be unable to manufacture such products if we mandate the use of non-PF binders. Therefore, we are finalizing our proposal to readopt the current NESHAP formaldehyde emission limits for existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

    B. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40970), we proposed first-time standards for methanol emitted from forming, cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. We established the MACT floor for methanol emissions based on application of the upper prediction limit (UPL) method to the best-performing five sources in the test data collected under Part 2 of the 2015 ICR. We considered beyond-the-floor options for methanol for all combined collection and curing operation designs as required by CAA section 112(d)(2); however, we did not propose any limits based on the beyond-the-floor analyses because of the potential adverse impacts of additional controls, including the cost of control devices, non-air environmental impacts, and energy implications associated with use of these additional controls.

    2. How did our findings pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) review change for the Wool Fberglass Manufacturing source category?

    In this final action, we are revising the methanol emission limits for new and existing bonded RS lines by reflecting just two significant figures, based on comments received on the August 29, 2017, proposal. This is consistent with current bonded RS line emission limits.

    3. What key comments did we receive on our findings pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?

    One commenter stated that the EPA's proposal illegally and arbitrarily relied on the UPL, instead of following the CAA's requirement to set an emission limitation that is not less stringent than the “average emission limitation achieved” by the relevant best-performing sources. The commenter also argued that there was ample support in the record for proposal and adoption of beyond-the-floor limits such as material switching.

    We disagree with the commenter. Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA requires the EPA to promulgate standards for major sources of HAP that are based on MACT performance. For existing sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best-performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources. For new sources, the MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. MACT standards also have to be continuously achievable as specified by CAA section 302(k).

    Although CAA section 112(d) includes language such as “existing source,” “best performing,” and “achieved in practice” in referring to source operations, the CAA language does not address whether sources' emission levels should be evaluated over time or be based on a single test result. In fact, the D.C. Circuit has long recognized the ambiguity in the term “average emission limitation.” See NACWA v. EPA, 734 F.3d at 1131 (noting that the court has accorded Chevron deference to the EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 129 MACT floor requirement) and 112 (“the phrase `average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units' could be interpreted several different ways, with several different variations of what the MACT floor is supposed to represent”). The phrase “average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units” does not specify the methodology that the EPA should use to determine the emissions levels achieved by the best-performing sources. Therefore, the EPA has discretion to interpret the phrase “average emission limitation achieved” by the best performing source or sources. Further, the D.C. Circuit has held repeatedly that the EPA may take the variability of best-performing sources into account in establishing MACT floors. Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 881-882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). See also, Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 861, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2001); National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 n.46, 443 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Consequently, we apply the UPL approach in developing numeric emission standards when using short-term test data, rather than calculating a straight average of test runs which does not address the performance of a source over time. The UPL is a statistical method to compensate for limited data and account for variability in emissions in determining what emission limitations have been achieved by the best-performing sources. The EPA's use of the UPL has been upheld based on explanations previously provided in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 632-637 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “We believe that the EPA has carried its burden of demonstrating that the UPL reflect[s] a reasonable estimate of the emissions achieved in practice by the best performing sources.” Id., at 635 (Internal citations omitted).

    With regard to the comment that we should have set beyond-the-floor limits in light of evidence of material switching, as explained at proposal, there are potential adverse impacts of additional controls for methanol, such as control devices costs, non-air quality health impacts, and energy implications (82 FR 40976). Additionally, as also previously explained, customer specifications preclude the use of products with any currently available non-PF binders and, therefore, requiring non-PF binders as a beyond-the-floor measure would result in these products likely no longer being produced. (“Nothing in section 7429(a)(2) requires the agency to impose a cost so disproportionate to the expected gains.” Id., at 640).

    4. What is the rationale for our final approach pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)?

    We based the final methanol emission limits for the forming, cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and reconstructed RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities on data collected under Part 2 of the 2015 ICR. We conclude that, based on the UPL for the best-performing five sources, these limits represent the MACT level of control for methanol emissions currently being achieved on RS line processes by using add-on control devices (e.g., gas scrubbers, thermal oxidizers). In response to the proposed rule, we did not receive any additional emissions and process data for consideration.

    C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(h) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(h) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40970), we proposed establishing work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) that represent MACT for phenol emissions from forming, cooling, and collection processes on bonded RS lines. We concluded that it was not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit for these processes due to the prevalence of emission test values reported as below the detection limit (BDL) of the test method.

    2. How did our findings pursuant to CAA section 112(h) change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    We did not change our proposal to establish work practice standards for phenol emissions under CAA section 112(h) for RS lines. However, based on our evaluation of public comments, we concluded that methods for determining the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binder formulations does not exist. We have, therefore, removed the proposed requirement for facilities to record the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binder formulations, and instead revised the proposed requirement for facilities to record and maintain records of the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of the resin purchased. In addition, facilities are required to record and maintain records of the formaldehyde and phenol content of the product binder formulations.

    3. What key comments did we receive on our findings pursuant to CAA section 112(h), and what are our responses?

    One commenter noted that the proposed rule requires owners or operators to record the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binder, but did not specify the method for determining these values. The proposed rule did not specify the procedures for determining the binder free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content because we were unaware of a published method for conducting the measurement. Based on discussions with the commenter, the industry does not have methods for assessing these parameters in binder formulations. Consequently, we are removing the requirement in the final rule to record the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binder formulations. We have revised the rule to require facilities to record and maintain records of the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of the resin purchased.

    One commenter said that the EPA failed to meet the required tests for setting only work practice standards instead of numerical emission limits. The commenter noted that the EPA may promulgate work practice standards instead of numerical standards “only if measuring emission levels is technologically or economically impracticable” (Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883-84 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) and only if doing so “is consistent with the provisions of subsection (d) or (f).” 42 U.S.C. 7412(h)(1). The commenter stated that the presence of BDL values in the test data does not provide an excuse for the EPA to evade the requirement to set numeric standards.

    We disagree with the commenter that numerical standards are appropriate for phenol emissions from RS lines. Sections 112(h)(1) and (h)(2)(B) of the CAA provide the EPA with the discretion to adopt a work practice standard, rather than a numeric standard, when “the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” The “application of measurement methodologies” (described in CAA section 112(h)(2)(B)) means not only conducting a measurement, but also that a measurement has some reasonable relation to what the source is emitting (i.e., that the measurement yields a meaningful value). That is not the case here. Therefore, as proposed, we concluded that it is not feasible to establish a numerical standard for phenol emissions from RS lines. Moreover, a numerical limit established at some level greater than the detection limit (which would be a necessity since any numeric standard would have to be measurable) could authorize and allow more emissions of these HAP than would otherwise be the case.

    4. What is the rationale for our final approach pursuant to CAA section 112(h)?

    As explained in the proposal preamble, approximately 60 percent of the phenol concentration values were reported as BDL values. Under these circumstances, it is not technologically and economically feasible to measure reliably phenol emissions from RS lines. This is also consistent with our approach in previous rulemakings (e.g., NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants) where test results were predominantly found to be BDL (e.g., more than 55 percent of the test run results). In these instances, the EPA established work practice standards for the pollutants in question from the subject sources because we concluded that emissions of the pollutants are too low to reliably measure and quantify. Similarly, we are finalizing work practice standards for phenol emissions from FA lines.

    D. Amendments for FA Lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category 1. What amendments did we propose for FA lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40976), we proposed three subcategories for FA lines under CAA section 112(d)(1) based on recent information indicating that there are technical or design differences that distinguish FA lines that manufacture different wool fiberglass products: (1) Aerospace and Air Filtration; (2) HVAC; and (3) OEM. (See also proposed 40 CFR 63.1381.) We also proposed revisions to the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits for FA lines promulgated on July 29, 2015 (80 FR 45280), to reflect these new subcategories and proposed a 1-year compliance period. In a separate action on July 6, 2017 (82 FR 34858), we proposed extending the compliance period for the July 29, 2015, final rule requirements for existing FA lines to 3 years in order to allow the EPA time to review corrected data provided by the industry.

    2. How did our findings regarding the FA line proposal change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    Consistent with our August 29, 2017, proposal, we revised the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol limits for FA lines to incorporate updated production data received from the industry. We also revised the definition of the Aerospace subcategory to include FA lines that manufacture pipe products to reflect comments we received on our proposal. Table 2 shows the final emission limits for the FA line subcategories.

    Table 2—Final Emission Limits for FA Line Subcategories [lb/ton] Subcategory Pollutant Existing
  • sources
  • New and
  • reconstructed
  • sources
  • Aerospace, Air Filtration, and Pipe Products Formaldehyde 27 18.0 Methanol 8.9 4.0 HVAC Formaldehyde 2.8 2.4 Methanol 7.3 1.5 Phenol 0.4 0.4 OEM Formaldehyde 5.0 2.9 Methanol 5.7 1.1 Phenol 31 22
    3. What key comments did we receive regarding the FA line proposal?

    One commenter noted that we did not use the correct production rate values in calculating the test run values (expressed in terms of pounds of pollutant per ton of glass pulled) that we used in the UPL analysis. We acknowledge the error in the industry data, and the emission limits for FA lines in the final rule, reflects the updated production values.

    One commenter noted that the Aerospace and Air Filtration Products subcategory should include pipe products because the same base resin is used in manufacturing these products. We agree with the commenter that it is appropriate for pipe products and the Aerospace and Air Filtration Products subcategory to meet the same emission limits; therefore, we revised the Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN in the final rule.

    Another commenter stated that the EPA's proposal to subcategorize FA lines so that each individual source is its own subcategory is irrational and unlawful and does not meet the statutory test for subcategorization specified in CAA section 112(d)(1), which is based on the “classes, types, and sizes” of sources. The commenter said that the EPA failed to provide the necessary determination to subcategorize, including a demonstration of: (1) Why these different products make the different lines somehow appropriate to divide into subcategories; (2) why the different products require the use of different binders, some with greater amounts of pollutants; or (3) why the EPA is changing its prior proposal not to subcategorize FA lines. The commenter also stated that there was no support for the work practice standard for phenol emissions from the Aerospace, Air Filtration, and Pipe Products subcategory.

    We disagree with the commenter. In the April 15, 2013, proposal (78 FR 22387), we proposed to eliminate the heavy density and pipe subcategories of FA manufacturing lines because we no longer believe that a technical basis exists to distinguish these subcategories, and, in the July 29, 2015, action, we finalized emission limits for FA lines that apply to all types of products. However, as noted in the August 29, 2017, proposal (82 FR 40977), the data (that we used to determine that FA line emission limits) contained errors in the analytical results for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol. In fact, the data used to set the 2015 emission limits did not represent every product manufactured by the source category. Our review of the corrected FA line data received from the industry identified that the phenol emission from certain FA production lines were 1- to 2-orders of magnitude higher than other FA lines. In addition, we found that some FA lines, due to their lower pull rates, were never represented in the data used to set the 2015 emission limits for FA lines. Based on discussions with Johns Manville (the only company currently operating FA lines), we were able to attribute the differences in phenol emissions to the use of different binder formulations in the manufacture of different wool fiberglass products for specific customer demands and end uses. We had also explained that PF binder application varies with the result that phenol emissions are either higher or lower depending on the product being manufactured (82 FR 40977). Additionally, proposed 40 CFR 63.1381 presented the proposed subcategories. Based on our proposal, we conclude that the different products manufactured, and their represented manufacturing processes are an acceptable basis that Congress intended for distinguishing between classes or types of sources. We also note that “type” is “undefined and unrestricted” in CAA section 112(d)(1). U.S. Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d at 656.

    One commenter noted that the final rule should include criteria for designating the appropriate subcategory for individual FA lines and suggested that the subcategory be assigned based on the type of product manufactured for 75 percent of the FA line's operating hours. We agree with the commenter. Therefore, we have revised the subcategory definitions in the final rule to include the percent-operating time criteria.

    One commenter objected to the EPA's proposal to extend the compliance date for FA lines because the EPA's action violates: (1) The clear compliance deadline requirements for air toxics standards provided in 40 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3); (2) the prohibition on a delay of effectiveness of more than 3 months for the purpose of reconsideration according to 40 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B); and (3) the core public notice-and-comment requirements of the CAA and reasoned decision-making because the EPA did not provide any information, data, or documents related to the erroneous data in the public docket. The commenter also asserted that the EPA's proposed action is arbitrary and capricious because it is unsupported by evidence in the record and it conflicts with evidence in the record. The commenter argued that the EPA is changing its prior determination of the 2-year compliance date without the required acknowledgment and a reasoned explanation, including a justification for disregarding the facts previously found. The commenter also said EPA has given no indication that the concern it raised applies to more than one facility or a sufficient number of facilities to justify considering a new compliance date for all sources, as opposed to evaluating a request for a single compliance date extension of 1 year under the statutory mechanism for that purpose. In addition, the EPA has failed to consider or address in any way the health and environmental effects of the compliance delay it proposes.

    We disagree with the commenter. The direct final action did not stay the effectiveness of the July 29, 2015, final rule but rather extended the compliance date for FA lines by one year. (82 FR 34858). Moreover, because the EPA received adverse comments, the direct final notice was subsequently withdrawn and did not go into effect. Additionally, in a separate action, of August 29, 2017, the EPA proposed a different approach that was based on new data and information provided by Johns Manville, which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. In this document, the EPA is taking action to finalize the approach presented in the August 29, 2017, that includes the creation of subscategories for FA lines. As such, assertions that the approach presented in the direct final and parallel proposal were insufficiently supported by the record are not relevant to this action. The final action is consistent with the statutory mandate and fully supported by the rulemaking record. As previously explained, CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) specifies that the compliance date for existing sources must provide for compliance as expeditiously as practicable, no later than 3 years after the effective date of the standard. The compliance deadline in this final rule does not exceed the 3-year period allowed under CAA section 112(i)(3)(A). As also previously explained, it reflects the period the EPA believes sources need to comply with these revised standards and conduct the necessary compliance tests (refer to section III.E of this action).

    We also disagree that the 3-month period for staying the effectiveness of a rule is relevant. The compliance extension contained within this action does not stay the effectiveness of a rule by altering the effective date. Instead, it simply extends the compliance date—an action which has its own effective date. Moreover, the CAA requirements at 40 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) specify the conditions for submitting and the requirements for responding to a petition for reconsideration. As we explained in the July 2017 action, we extended the compliance date on our own initiative because we discovered that the data on which the July 2015 final rule was based contained errors. We were not proceeding in response to a petition for reconsideration of the rule.

    As previously discussed regarding the response to comments on our proposed work practice standards for phenol emissions from RS lines, in section IV.C of this preamble, we disagree with the commenter that numerical standards are appropriate for phenol emissions from FA lines. For the reasons provided in section IV.C, we conclude that it is not feasible to establish a numerical standard for phenol emissions from FA lines manufacturing aerospace, air filtration, and pipe products.

    4. What is the rationale for our final approach for FA lines?

    Based on the corrected phenol emissions data and the different binder formulations used, we conclude it is appropriate to establish the Aerospace, HVAC, and OEM subcategories and their associated emission standards for FA lines in this final rule. We are providing a period of 3 years to allow owners and operators of FA lines sufficient time to plan and conduct compliance tests, submit notifications and compliance status reports, and to evaluate current control technology conditions, if needed.

    E. Other Amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP 1. What other amendments did we propose to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?

    In the August 29, 2017, action we proposed amendments to the incinerator operating limits specified in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) to clearly indicate that the subsection applies to total RS or FA line emissions. In addition, we proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.1383(g)(1) to include this clarification as it relates to monitoring requirements.

    In the August 29, 2017, proposed rule, we revised 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(8)(i) to include corrective action requirements as they apply to the new RS line emission limits, and the revised FA line emission limits. Similarly, we proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.1383(h) to reflect monitoring requirements applicable to the new RS line emission limits, and the revised FA line emission limits. In addition, we revised 40 CFR 63.1383(i)(1) to address owner or operators who use process modifications to control both formaldehyde and methanol emissions.

    The August 29, 2017, proposed rule included clarification for performance test requirements, as included in 40 CFR 63.1384(a)(3), and revised 40 CFR 63.1384(a)(9) to require the requirement to monitor and record the free-phenol content of the binder formulation.

    Lastly, we proposed to allow owners or operators that conducted emissions tests in 2016 in response to the EPA's ICR to submit those performance test results to demonstrate initial compliance with the new methanol emission limits for RS lines, rather than conducting additional tests.

    2. How did our findings change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?

    Based on comments received, we reiterate in this final action that the incinerator operating limits of 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) apply to total emissions from forming, cooling, and collection for RS lines and to total emissions from forming, cooling, and collection for FA lines.

    3. What key comments did we receive regarding the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP in general?

    One commenter noted that in the August 29, 2017, proposed rule preamble the EPA stated that “We are also proposing amendments to the incinerator operating limits specified in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) to clearly indicate that the subsection applies to cooling emissions. Incinerators would be required to control the final formaldehyde, methanol, and, where applicable, phenol emissions from forming, curing, and cooling processes for both FA and bonded RS lines.” 82 FR 40976. The commenter suggested that the EPA should make clear that an owner or operator must meet the incinerator requirements in the event the cooling section on a particular line uses incineration as a means of control. The commenter indicated that the rule text revision was acceptable, but the preamble language was contradictory.

    We have finalized 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(g) as proposed, but have provided clarification in this preamble to indicate that the incinerator operating limit applies to the total emissions from the production line, and does not apply to individual incinerators used for each of the processes within the production line.

    As noted in section IV.C.2 of this preamble, one commenter noted that the proposed rule requires owners or operators to record the free-phenol content of binder, but did not specify the method for determining free-phenol content of the binders. Based on discussions with the commenter, the industry does not have a method for assessing this parameter in binder formulations. We have, therefore, revised 40 CFR 63.1384(a)(9) to require facilities to record and maintain records of the free-phenol content of the resin purchased. In addition, the facilities are required to maintain records of the formaldehyde and phenol content of the binder formulations used in the products.

    4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the additional amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?

    We have revised the requirement for monitoring and recording the free-phenol content to specify that facilities must monitor and record the free-phenol content of the resin purchased, and not of the binder formulation. All other proposed rule revisions are finalized as proposed. We provide clarification in this preamble the intent of the incinerator operating limits included in the final rule, and indicate they are applicable to the RS and FA lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

    V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities?

    Currently, only three wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities continue to use RS lines to manufacture a bonded product. These three facilities operate six bonded RS lines that would be affected by the revised emission limits. Additionally, two facilities continue to use FA lines to manufacture a bonded product. The EPA is not currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed bonded RS or FA lines.

    B. What are the air quality impacts?

    Based on the test data received in response to the 2015 ICR, the three facilities with bonded RS lines currently meet the final emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol. Furthermore, based on available information, we expect the two facilities with bonded FA lines will be able to meet the emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol and phenol without additional controls. Therefore, the emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol and phenol will likley not result in further HAP emissions reductions. Also, we do not anticipate secondary environmental impacts from the final amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP because we expect that owners or operators will not need to install additional control devices to meet any of the standards.

    C. What are the cost impacts?

    Because the existing facilities will not need to install add-on control devices or implement process modifications to comply with the final emissions standards, and because the EPA is allowing facilities to use the test reports submitted in response to Part 2 of the ICR to demonstrate initial compliance with the final emission limits for RS lines, the five facilities that are subject to the final emission standards will not incur increased costs for installing or upgrading emissions control systems. However, the facilities that are subject to this final action will each incur costs related to the testing and notifications requirements related to emission limits, and additional monitoring and recordkeeping activities related to work practice standards. The total annual cost of this final action is approximately $13,131/year (2016 dollars).

    D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses evaluate changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the directly affected markets are significant, impacts on other markets are also examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a rule.

    The final standards for RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities do not impose control costs or additional testing costs on affected facilities. However, affected facilities will have reporting requirements (i.e., an initial notification and a notification of compliance status) associated with the final formaldehyde and methanol emission limits and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements associated with the phenol work practice standard. We estimate that the total annual cost of this final action is approximately $13,131/year (2016 dollars). The economic impacts associated with the costs of this final action are quite low; each affected firm is estimated to experience an impact of less than 0.01 percent of their revenues.

    E. What are the benefits?

    Based on the data collected under Part 2 of the ICR, the actual formaldehyde emissions from all bonded RS lines are lower than the level allowed under the 1999 NESHAP. Although the final standards for formaldehyde from RS lines do not achieve further emissions reductions, the final emission limits for methanol and the work practice standards for phenol ensure that the emissions reductions that have been achieved since the 1999 NESHAP will persist into the future and that emissions will not increase.

    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), and it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.

    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This final action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 1160.10. This action does not change the information collection requirements.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. None of the five entities affected by this action are small entities, using the Small Business Administration definition of small business for the affected NAICS code (327993), which is 1,500 employees for the ultimate parent company.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action readopts the existing emission limit for formaldehyde and establishes new emission limits for methanol and a work practice standard for phenol emissions for RS lines. This action also includes revisions to the standards for FA lines. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their databases.

    As discussed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68029), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, we conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 318, 320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. These searches did not identify any VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.

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

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

    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass manufacturing.

    Dated: December 15, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart NNN—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 2. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding the definitions, in alphabetical order, for “Aerospace and air filtration products”; “Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) products”; and “Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products” and revising the definition of “Pipe product” to read as follows:
    § 63.1381 Definitions.

    Aerospace and air filtration products means bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured for the thermal and acoustical insulation of aircraft and/or the air filtration markets. For the purposes of this subpart, a production line that manufactures these types of products for 75 percent or more of the line's annual operating hours is considered to be an aerospace and air filtration products line.

    Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) products means bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured for use in HVAC systems for the distribution of air or for thermal and acoustical insulation of HVAC distribution lines. For the purposes of this subpart, a production line that manufactures these types of products for 75 percent or more of the line's annual operating hours is considered to be an HVAC products line.

    Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products means bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured for OEM entities that fabricate the insulation into parts used as thermal or acoustical insulation in products including, but not limited to, appliances, refrigeration units, and office interior equipment. For the purposes of this subpart, a production line that manufactures these types of products for 75 percent or more of the line's annual operating hours is considered to be an OEM products line.

    Pipe product means bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured on a flame attenuation manufacturing line and having a loss on ignition of 8 to 14 percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m3 (3 to 6 lb/ft3). For the purposes of this subpart, a production line that manufactures these types of products for 75 percent or more of the line's annual operating hours is considered to be a pipe product line.

    3. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(8)(i), and (c)(9) to read as follows:
    § 63.1382 Emission standards.

    (c) * * *

    (6) The owner or operator must operate each incinerator used to comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart such that any 3-hour block average temperature in the firebox does not fall below the average established during the performance test as specified in § 63.1384.

    (8)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1 hour when the monitored process parameter level(s) is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.1384 for the process modification(s) used to comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart, and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

    (9) The owner or operator must use a resin in the formulation of binder such that the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the resin used do not exceed the respective ranges contained in the specification for the resin used during the performance test as specified in § 63.1384.

    4. Section 63.1383 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h), (i)(1), and (j) to read as follows:
    § 63.1383 Monitoring requirements.

    (g)(1) The owner or operator who uses an incinerator to comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures and records the operating temperature in the firebox of each incinerator.

    (h) The owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device to comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate monitoring devices that continuously monitor and record the gas pressure drop across each scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate to each scrubber according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The pressure drop monitor must be certified by its manufacturer to be accurate within ±250 pascals (±1 inch water gauge) over its operating range, and the flow rate monitor must be certified by its manufacturer to be accurate within ±5 percent over its operating range. The owner or operator must also continuously monitor and record the feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the scrubbing liquid.

    (i)(1) The owner or operator who uses process modifications to comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart must establish a correlation between formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions, as appropriate, and the process parameter(s) to be monitored.

    (j) The owner or operator must monitor and record the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of each resin shipment received and of each resin used in the formulation of binder.

    5. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(3), (a)(9), and (c) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 63.1384 Performance test requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits in § 63.1382. Compliance is demonstrated when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each of the applicable emission limits in § 63.1382. The owner or operator shall conduct the performance test according to the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and in this section. If the owner or operator conducted an emissions test in 2016 according to the procedures specified in § 63.1384(a)(9) and § 63.1385 in response to the EPA's Information Collection Request, the owner or operator can use the results of the emissions test to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for rotary spin lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

    (3) During each performance test, the owner or operator must monitor and record the glass pull rate for each glass-melting furnace and, if different, the glass pull rate for each rotary spin manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line. Record the glass pull rate every 15 minutes during any performance test required by this subpart and determine the arithmetic average of the recorded measurements for each test run and calculate the average of the three test runs. If a rotary spin or flame attenuation line shares one or more emissions points with another rotary spin or flame attenuation line(s), owners or operators can conduct the performance test while each of the process lines with the shared emissions point(s) is operating as specified in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, rather than testing each of the shared lines separately. In these cases, owners or operators must use the combined glass pull rate for the process lines with the shared emissions point(s) to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

    (9) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by this subpart must conduct performance tests using the resin with the highest free-formaldehyde content. During the performance test of each rotary spin manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by this subpart, the owner or operator shall monitor and record the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the resin, the binder formulation used, and the product LOI and density.

    (c) To determine compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, for formaldehyde and methanol for rotary spin manufacturing lines; formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for flame attenuation manufacturing lines; and chromium compounds for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, use the following equation:

    6. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:
    § 63.1385 Test methods and procedures

    (a) * * *

    (8) Method contained in appendix B of this subpart for the determination of the free-formaldehyde content of resin. The owner or operator shall use vendor specifications to determine the free-phenol content of resin.

    7. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2)(v) to read as follows:
    § 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements

    (d) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (v) The formulation of each binder batch and the LOI and density for each product manufactured on a rotary spin manufacturing line or flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to the provisions of this subpart, and the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of each resin shipment received and of each resin used in the binder formulation;

    8. Table 2 to subpart NNN of part 63 is amended by: a. Revising entries 7 and 8; b. Redesignating entries 9 through 13 as entries 11 through 15; c. Adding new entries 9 and 10; d. Revising newly redesignated entries 11 through 15; e. Adding entries 16 through 19; and f. Adding footnote 5.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Table 2 to Subpart NNN of Part 63—Emission Limits and Compliance Dates If your source is a: And you commenced
  • construction:
  • Your emission limits are: 1 And you must comply by: 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7. Rotary spin manufacturing line On or before March 31, 1997 1.2 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 5 June 14, 2002. 8. Rotary spin manufacturing line After March 31, 1997 0.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 5 June 14, 1999. 9. Rotary spin manufacturing line On or before November 25, 2011 1.2 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 1.1 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled December 26, 2020. 10. Rotary spin manufacturing line After November 25, 2011 0.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 0.65 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled December 26, 2017.4 11. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a heavy-density product After March 31, 1997, but on or before November 25, 2011 7.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 5 June 14, 1999. 12. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product On or before March 31, 1997 6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 5 June 14, 2002. 13. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product After March 31, 1997, but before November 25, 2011 6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 5 June 14, 1999. 14. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing an aerospace, air filtration, or pipe product On or before November 25, 2011 27 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 8.9 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled December 26, 2020. 15. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing an aerospace, air filtration, or pipe product After November 25, 2011 18.0 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 4.0 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled December 26, 2017.4 16. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing an HVAC product On or before November 25, 2011 2.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 7.3 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled 0.4 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled December 26, 2020. 17. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing an HVAC product After November 25, 2011 2.4 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 1.5 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled 0.4 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled December 26, 2017.4 18. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing an OEM product On or before November 25, 2011 5.0 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 5.7 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled 31 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled December 26, 2020. 19. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing an OEM product After November 25, 2011 2.9 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 1.1 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled 22 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled December 26, 2017.4 1 The numeric limits do not apply during startup and shutdown. 2 Existing sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance.     *         *         *         *         *         *         * 4 Or initial startup, whichever is later. 5 This limit does not apply after December 26, 2020.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27797 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0683; FRL-9971-92-OAR] RIN 2060-AT61 Approval of Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Volatility Standard for Several Parishes AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve an April 10, 2017 request from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for the following parishes: Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary. Specifically, EPA is approving amendments to the regulations to allow the gasoline RVP standard for these 11 parishes to rise from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi. EPA has determined that this change to the Federal gasoline RVP volatility regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). LDEQ has also requested that EPA relax gasoline volatility requirements for the 5-parish Baton Rouge area, and EPA will address that request in a separate rulemaking in the future.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on January 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0683. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dave Sosnowski, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4823; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: [email protected]. You may also contact Rudolph Kapichak at the same address; telephone number: (734) 214-4574; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

    I. General Information II. Action Being Taken III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement IV. EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas V. Louisiana's Request to Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement for Several Parishes VI. Response to Comments VII. Final Action VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews IX. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and distributors who do business in Louisiana.

    Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS 1 Codes Petroleum refineries 324110, 424710 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors 424720 Gasoline Retail Stations 447110 Gasoline Transporters 484220, 484230 1 North American Industry Classification System.

    The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware that could be affected by this rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To determine whether your organization may be affected by this rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the CAA, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

    II. Action Being Taken

    This final rule approves a request from the state of Louisiana to change the federal RVP standard for the parishes of Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). EPA is not addressing in this final rule LDEQ's request that EPA also relax the federal RVP standard for the 5-parish Baton Rouge area. EPA will address that request in a separate rulemaking in the future.

    The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III, provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation; Section IV, describes the policy regarding relaxation of volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas; Section V, provides information specific to Louisiana's request for the 11 parishes addressed by this action; Section VI, provides a response to the comments EPA received; and Section VII, presents the final action in response to Louisiana's request.

    III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section 211(c), EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state basis in the final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum gasoline RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).

    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section 211(h) to address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section IV. of this preamble.

    The state of Louisiana initiated the change being finalized in this action by requesting that EPA relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard to 9.0 psi for the parishes of Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary. See Section V. of this preamble for information specific to Louisiana's request.

    IV. EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (See 56 FR 64706, December 12, 1991), any change in the gasoline volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where EPA mandated a Phase II summertime volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi gasoline RVP requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

    As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the gasoline volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates to the satisfaction of EPA that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard.

    As explained in the proposal to this final rule, some former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas that remain subject to the federal summertime RVP limit of 7.8 psi have been designated as attainment areas for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS and based on the latest available air quality data are also attaining the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS. These states submitted, and EPA approved, CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for these areas, as required by the Phase 1 implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004).

    As further explained at proposal, EPA has concluded that there is neither an implementation plan revision nor a CAA section 110(l) demonstration required in order for EPA to approve a state's request to relax the federal summertime gasoline RVP limit under the circumstances described above for such areas as these 11 parishes. Rather, in order for EPA to approve a request to relax the federal RVP limit for such areas, the Governor or his/her designee must request that the Administrator revise the federal gasoline RVP regulations to remove the subject areas from the list of required areas in 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). The state may provide any relevant supporting information such as recent air quality data, designation status for ozone and information on previously approved ozone maintenance plans. The Administrator's decision on whether to grant a state's request to revise the federal gasoline RVP regulations in such cases would be documented through notice-and-comment rulemaking. See the August 9, 2017 proposal for further background (82 FR 37184).

    V. Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement for Several Parishes

    On April 10, 2017, LDEQ requested that EPA relax the current federal gasoline RVP volatility standard of 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for 16 Louisiana parishes, the 5 parishes of the Baton Rouge area, and 11 other parishes: Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary. These other 11 parishes attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and were redesignated to attainment with approved CAA section 175A maintenance plans. They were then designated as attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As such, the State was required by EPA's Phase 1 rule, which implemented the 1997 ozone NAAQS, to submit CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for these parishes that addressed the 10-year period from 2004 to 2014. (See 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004.) 2 The Phase 1 implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS did not require Louisiana to submit second 10-year CAA section 175A maintenance plans for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for these parishes. In 2012, all 11 parishes were designated as attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because they were designated as attainment for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, they were not required to submit a CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, as explained earlier above, these parishes are no longer within the timeframe that was addressed by any approved maintenance plan for any ozone NAAQS. The 11 parishes that are the subject of this action are all attaining the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS, and the State did not recommend that any of these 11 parishes be designated as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.3

    2 For more information on Louisiana's CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the individual parishes under the 1997 ozone NAAQS, please refer to the following Federal Register notices approving the maintenance plans for the parishes listed parenthetically after the citation: 72 FR 62579, November 6, 2007 (Beauregard and St. Mary Parishes); 73 FR 15411, March 24, 2008 (Lafayette and Lafourche Parishes); 78 FR 57058 September 17, 2008 (Pointe Coupee Parish); 73 FR 53403 September 16, 2008 (New Orleans Parish); and 73 FR 59518 (Calcasieu and St. James Parishes).

    3 On September 29, 2015, Louisiana submitted a letter to EPA recommending designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The State recommended that all of the 11 parishes addressed in this action be designated as unclassifiable/attainment. The letter is available at: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-designations/ozone-designations-2015-standards-louisiana-state-recommendations.

    EPA's August 9, 2017 proposal included several pieces of information that supports the State's request:

    • The current ozone design values for the parishes in question, based upon 2013-2015 air quality data are well below the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 parts-per-billion (ppb). For more information on current design values for the 11 parishes refer to Table 1 in the August 9, 2017 proposal (82 FR 37186).

    • Moreover, the projections for VOC emissions (i.e., the ozone precursor controlled through RVP limitations) from the previously approved CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the areas covered by the State's request show relatively flat or downward VOC emissions trends through 2014. For more information on trends in VOC emissions in the 11 parishes refer to Table 2 in the August 9, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking (82 FR 37187).

    • There are also national rules that result in VOC and/or NOx emission reductions that will contribute to the downward trend in ozone concentrations in the 11 parishes into the future. See EPA's August 9, 2017 proposal for further information (82 FR 37184).

    VI. Response to Comments

    EPA received four comments on its August 9, 2017 (82 FR 37184) proposal to relax the gasoline RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. EPA found that these comments were either supportive of the proposed change or fell outside the scope of this action as discussed further below.

    Comment: An organization representing the Louisiana oil and gas industry provided comments in support of the proposed relaxation of summertime gasoline RVP from 7.8 to 9.0 psi.

    Response: EPA acknowledges that the commenter supported the proposal.

    Comment: EPA received two sets of comments that were not related to any of the issues addressed in the proposal, while a third expressed general disagreement with relaxing any environmental regulations for any reason without addressing the specific issue of the subject RVP relaxation.

    Response: Regarding the generic objection to the relaxation of environmental regulations, EPA deemed this outside the scope of the proposal because it did not address EPA's conclusion that approving the proposed relaxation would not adversely impact air quality in the covered areas, nor would it interfere with those areas' ability to meet any other applicable NAAQS. As discussed above and in the proposal, EPA has concluded based on current air quality data and available VOC and NOx emissions information that the RVP relaxation will not have any appreciable effect on air quality in the 11 parishes, and therefore, the requested relaxation is approvable.

    VII. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Louisiana's request for the Agency to relax the RVP applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for the parishes of Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary. Specifically, this action amends the applicable gasoline RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the 11 named parishes. This approval is based on the redesignation of the named areas to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and their designation as attainment for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, recent air quality data from monitors in the parishes demonstrates that they are attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb. Lastly, emission reductions from national rules aimed at reducing VOCs and NOx that were not previously claimed or accounted for in the State's projection of air quality trends for its maintenance plans will ensure continued attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

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

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

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

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction because it relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline, and as a result, fuel suppliers will no longer be required to provide 7.8 psi lower RVP gasoline in the 11 parishes during the summer months (June 1st through September 15th). Relaxing the volatility requirements will also be beneficial because this action can improve the fungibility of gasoline sold in the State of Louisiana by allowing the gasoline sold in the 11 named parishes to be identical to the fuel sold in most of the remainder of the State.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under PRA, because it does not contain any information collection activities.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in Louisiana and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Louisiana. This action relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in 11 Louisiana parishes during the high ozone season. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from the CAA section 211(h) Volatility Control program. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This final rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule will affect only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the 11 Louisiana parishes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. EPA has no reason to believe that this action may disproportionately affect children based on available ozone air quality data and VOC and NOX emissions information. EPA has concluded that a relaxation of the gasoline RVP will not interfere with the attainment of the ozone NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement in these 11 Louisiana parishes.

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

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

    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not affect the applicable ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule relaxes the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the high ozone season (June 1 to September 15 of each year). EPA has concluded that the relaxation will not cause a measurable increase in ozone concentrations that would result in a violation of any ozone NAAQS including the 2008 ozone NAAQS or the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result.

    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    M. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 26, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

    IX. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 15, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES 1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).

    2. Section 80.27 is amended in the table in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) by revising the entries for “Louisiana” to read as follows:
    § 80.27 Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    Applicable Standards 1 1992 and Subsequent Years State May June July August September *         *         *         *         *         *         * Louisiana: Grant Parish 4 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 11 Other Louisiana Parishes 11 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 All other volatility nonattainment areas 9.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).     *         *         *         *         *         *         * 4 The standard for Grant Parish from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through 2007 was 7.8 psi.     *         *         *         *         *         *         * 11 The standard for the Louisiana parishes of Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through 2017 was 7.8 psi.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27628 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213; FRL-9972-47-OAR] RIN 2060-AT43 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received adverse comment on the direct final rule titled “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant,” published on September 28, 2017. Therefore, through this document we are withdrawing that direct final rule.

    DATES:

    Effective December 26, 2017, EPA withdraws the direct final rule published at 82 FR 45202, on September 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EPA received adverse comment on the direct final rule “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant,” published on September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45202). The direct final rule stated that if the Agency received adverse comment by October 30, 2017, the direct final rule would not take effect and EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. Because we received adverse comment on that direct final rule during that comment period we are withdrawing the direct final rule in this document. We will address relevant comments in any subsequent final action, which would be based on the parallel proposed rule also published on September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45253). The Agency intends to act expeditiously on the parallel proposed rule. As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed rule, there will not be a second comment period on this action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

    Dated: December 15, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator. Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 82.154 published on September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45202) are withdrawn as of December 26, 2017.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27799 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0258; FRL-9970-94] 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl); Tolerance Exemption AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl); when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Spring Trading Company on behalf of Ashland Specialty Ingredients, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) on food or feed commodities.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective December 26, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 26, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0258, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

    C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0258 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 26, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0258, by one of the following methods.

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

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

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

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

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of September 15, 2017 (82 FR 43352) (FRL-9965-43), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11045) filed by Spring Trading Company on behalf of Ashland Specialty Ingredients, 203 Dogwood Trail Magnolia, Texas 77354. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl); 193743-10-1. That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments.

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

    III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

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

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

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

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

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

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

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

    7. The polymer's number average MW of 20,600 is greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.

    Thus, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 2-propenoic acid,2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl).

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) is 20,600 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

    V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

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

    EPA has not found 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 2-propenoic acid,2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

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

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

    VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid,2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl).

    VIII. Other Considerations A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    Not Available.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    C. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl).

    IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

    X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    XI. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 30, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.960, add alphabetically the polymer “2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 20,600” to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Polymer CAS No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone and a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 20,600 193743-10-1 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-27805 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, and 262 [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0492; FRL-9971-49-OLEM] RIN 2050-AG90 Confidentiality Determinations for Hazardous Waste Export and Import Documents AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is amending existing regulations regarding the export and import of hazardous wastes from and into the United States. Specifically, this rule applies a confidentiality determination such that no person can assert confidential business information (CBI) claims for documents related to the export, import, and transit of hazardous waste and export of excluded cathode ray tubes (CRTs). EPA is making these changes to apply a consistent approach in addressing confidentiality claims for export and import documentation. The rule will result in cost-savings and greater efficiency for EPA and the regulated community as well as facilitate transparency with respect to the documents that are within the scope of this rulemaking. However, EPA is not finalizing the proposed internet posting requirement in the proposed rule.

    DATES:

    The final rule is effective on June 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0492. All documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov. Docket materials are also available in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center Reading Room. Please see https://www.epa.gov/dockets/epa-docket-center-reading-room or call (202) 566-1744 for more information on the Docket Center Reading Room.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lia Yohannes, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery; telephone number: (703) 308-8413; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA's authority to promulgate this rule is found in sections 1002, 2002(a), 3001-3004, and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., 6912, 6921-6924, and 6938.

    B. Does this action apply to me?

    The application of confidentiality determinations to RCRA export, import, and transit documents in this action generally affects three (3) groups: (1) All persons who export or import (or arrange for the export or import of) of hazardous waste for recycling or disposal, including those hazardous wastes subject to the alternate management standards for (a) universal waste for recycling or disposal, (b) spent lead-acid batteries (SLABs) being shipped for reclamation, (c) industrial ethyl alcohol being shipped for reclamation, (d) hazardous waste samples of more than 25 kilograms being shipped for waste characterization or treatability studies, and (e) hazardous recyclable materials being shipped for precious metal recovery; (2) all recycling and disposal facilities who receive imports of such hazardous wastes for recycling or disposal; and (3) all persons who export (or arrange for the export of) conditionally excluded cathode ray tubes (CRTs) being shipped for recycling.

    Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

    NAICS code NAICS description 211 Oil and Gas Extraction. 324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing. 325 Chemical Manufacturing. 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing. 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing. 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing. 332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing. 333 Machinery Manufacturing. 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing. 335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing. 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing. 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing. 423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods. 424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods. 522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities. 525 Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles. 531 Real Estate. 541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services. 561 Administrative and Support Services. 562 Waste Management and Remediation Services. 721 Accommodation. 813 Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations. 211 Oil and Gas Extraction. 324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    II. Background

    On November 28, 2016, EPA proposed revisions to the current RCRA regulations governing imports and exports of hazardous waste and certain other materials in parts 260, 262, 264, 265, and 267 in order to strengthen public accessibility and transparency of import and export-related documentation to better monitor proper compliance with EPA's hazardous waste regulations and help ensure that hazardous waste shipments are properly received and disposed (81 FR 85459). The internet Posting of and Confidentiality Determinations for Hazardous Waste Export and Import Documents Proposed Rule was a companion action to EPA's Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Final Rule (“Revisions Final Rule”) published on November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85696), which was one of the Agency's priority actions under its plan for periodic retrospective reviews of existing regulations, as required by Executive Order 13563. Under the Revisions Final Rule, export notices for hazardous waste and excluded CRTs exported for recycling are currently required to be submitted electronically to EPA using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS) as of December 31, 2016. Export annual reports for hazardous waste and excluded CRTs exported for recycling will be required to be submitted electronically to EPA using WIETS on March 1, 2019. Other import and export documents for hazardous waste and excluded CRTs exported for recycling are transitioning from paper submittal to electronic submittal, and will be required to be submitted electronically to EPA using WIETS on a future compliance date to be announced in a future, separate Federal Register notice.

    The proposed rulemaking for this final action consisted of two parts. First, EPA proposed requiring exporters and receiving facilities of hazardous waste from foreign sources to post confirmation of receipt and confirmation of recovery or disposal documents on publicly accessible websites when such documents are required for individual export and import shipments of hazardous wastes. EPA proposed that the documents be publicly accessible on company websites by the first of March of each year and that the websites include all of the confirmations of receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal received by the exporter or sent out by the receiving facility related to exports or imports of hazardous waste made during the previous calendar year. Each document was to be made available for a period of at least three years following the date on which each document was first posted to the website. The proposed internet posting requirement was planned to be effective during the interim period prior to the electronic import-export reporting compliance date when electronic submittal to EPA of confirmations of receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal for hazardous waste shipments will be required in EPA's WIETS system per the Revisions Final Rule. The second part of the proposed rule consisted of applying confidentiality determinations such that no person could assert CBI claims for individual documents and compiled data for required documents related to the export, import, and transit of hazardous waste and export of conditionally excluded cathode ray tubes (CRTs).

    III. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule A. Summary of the Final Rule

    This section provides an overview of this final rule and describes the way in which it differs from the proposal. With this action, EPA finalizes the application of confidentiality determinations such that no CBI claims may be asserted by any person with respect to any of the following documents related to the export, import, and transit of hazardous waste and export of excluded CRTs:

    (1) Documents related to the export of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, including but not limited to the notifications of intent to export, contracts submitted in response to requests for supplemental information from countries of import or transit, RCRA manifests, annual reports, EPA acknowledgements of consent, any subsequent communication withdrawing a prior consent or objection, responses that neither consent nor object, exception reports, transit notifications, and renotifications;

    (2) Documents related to the import of hazardous waste, under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, including but not limited to contracts and notifications of intent to import hazardous waste into the U.S. from foreign countries or U.S. importers;

    (3) Documents related to the confirmation of receipt and confirmation of recovery or disposal of hazardous waste exports and imports, under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H;

    (4) Documents related to the transit of hazardous waste, under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, including notifications from U.S. exporters of intent to transit through foreign countries, or notifications from foreign countries of intent to transit through the U.S.;

    (5) Documents related to the export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs), under 40 CFR part 261, subpart E, including but not limited to notifications of intent to export CRTs;

    (6) Documents related to the export and import of non-crushed spent lead acid batteries (SLABs) with intact casings, under 40 CFR part 266 subpart G, including but not limited to notifications of intent to export SLABs;

    (7) Submissions from transporters under 40 CFR part 263, or from treatment, storage or disposal facilities under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, related to exports or imports of hazardous waste, including but not limited to receiving facility notices of the need to arrange alternate management or return of an import shipment under 40 CFR 264.12(a) and 265.12(a); and

    (8) Documents related to the export and import of RCRA universal waste under 40 CFR part 273, subparts B, C, D, and F.

    (9) Documents required under 40 CFR 262, subparts E, F, and H and submitted in accordance with consents issued prior to December 31, 2016.

    Unless otherwise required by Federal law, EPA is not considering the documents described in items (1) through (9) in this preamble to be final until March 1 of the year after which the shipments occur.

    These changes will be reflected in revisions to 40 CFR part 260, as proposed, and in conforming revisions to 40 CFR parts 261 and 262.

    EPA is not finalizing the proposed internet posting requirement of confirmation of receipt and confirmation of recovery or disposal documents where they would have been required for individual export and import shipments of hazardous wastes. As required under the recordkeeping requirements for exports and imports of hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, exporters and receiving facilities of hazardous waste from foreign sources are required to retain paper copies of such confirmations such that copies are available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or authorized state inspector. Once electronic submittals of the confirmation documents are required after the electronic import-export reporting compliance date that EPA will establish in a separate Federal Register notice, electronically submitted confirmations can be retained in EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system, such that copies are available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or authorized state inspector.

    B. Summary of Public Comments

    The Agency received seven unique comments in response to its November 28, 2016 proposed rule. Of the seven comments, two were submitted anonymously, two were submitted from individual companies, one was submitted by a trade association representing hazardous waste treatment, recycling and disposal companies, one was submitted by a coalition representing generators of hazardous waste, and one was submitted by a trade association representing fuel and petrochemical manufacturers.

    With respect to the proposed internet posting requirement, two anonymous commenters expressed their support, stating that it would improve transparency and environmental awareness of the potential environmental and health risks associated with exposure to hazardous waste, and potentially lead to reduced generation and improved management of hazardous waste. The remaining five commenters from industry expressed concern with the proposed internet posting requirement. These commenters stated that EPA underestimated the costs associated with posting information on company websites and were apprehensive about the burden of complying with a temporary requirement that would be in place for an unspecified amount of time. Two commenters suggested that the lag in time between when the confirmations of receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal are required to be sent and when the documents would be posted on company websites would cause confusion and an incorrect perception by the general public of mismanagement. Two commenters also suggested that requiring industry to submit export and import documentation to EPA, rather than post on individual company websites, would provide better consistency to the regulated community and ensure greater compliance with export and import regulations. Finally, one commenter suggested that EPA develop its own website to post the documents to improve public access to the information. (See Section “II.C. Changes to the Proposed Rule” of this preamble for EPA's rationale for not finalizing the proposed internet posting requirement.)

    EPA received only one comment on the proposed confidentiality determination. The commenter expressed concerns about the application of a confidentiality determination to aggregate data related to exports and imports of hazardous waste. EPA considers aggregate data to be a list of consolidated information about shipments organized by company. According to the commenter, the application of a confidentiality determination to aggregate data poses different concerns from those raised by application of confidentiality determinations to individual documents. The commenter was specifically concerned about the potential for competitive harm from public release of customer lists and issues related to national security if aggregate data about shipments were available to individuals with the intent to do harm. Because of the substantial effort required to compile a customer list from individual export and import documents, the commenter did not have similar concerns with respect to the release of individual hazardous waste export and import documents. (See response to comments document and Section “II.D. Rationale for Final Rule” of this preamble for details on EPA's response to these comments.)

    C. Changes to the Proposed Rule

    After considering all the submitted comments, EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the application of confidentiality determinations to documents related to the export, import and transit of hazardous waste and export of excluded CRTs. We provide our rationale in the following section. EPA is not finalizing the proposed internet posting requirement that exporters and receiving facilities of hazardous waste from foreign sources upload confirmations of receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal on their websites. This internet posting requirement was intended to be in effect on a temporary basis while EPA develops its Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS) to be able to receive electronic submittals of the documents. Recognizing that the internet posting requirement would be superseded when exporters and receiving facilities are required to submit confirmations electronically, EPA has decided to avoid the potential confusion as described by some commenters, that may result from requiring internet posting of documents on a temporary basis on company websites and from the time lag between the receipt and posting of confirmations of receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal.

    D. Rationale for the Final Rule

    This final rule applies confidentiality determinations such that EPA will no longer accept future CBI claims for individual documents and/or aggregate data related to the export, import, and transit of hazardous waste and export of excluded CRTs. EPA is making these changes to apply a consistent approach in addressing confidentiality claims for export and import documentation which will result in cost-savings and greater efficiency for EPA and the regulated community. Moreover, as described in the proposed rulemaking, EPA will no longer publish the annual Federal Register notice requesting comment from third party affected businesses (other than original submitters), as defined in 40 CFR 2.201(d), on their need to assert confidentiality claims for documents submitted to EPA related to hazardous waste exports and imports as well as data compiled from such documents, prior to EPA considering such documents releasable upon public request. The Federal Register notice covers documents related to the export, import and transit of RCRA hazardous waste, including those hazardous wastes managed under the special management standards in 40 CFR part 266 (e.g., spent lead acid batteries) and 40 CFR part 273 (e.g., universal waste batteries, universal waste mercury lamps), and related to the export of CRTs under 40 CFR part 261, made during the previous calendar year. The annual Federal Register notices have not addressed CBI claims likely to be made by the original submitters, since RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 260.2(b) already address the CBI requirements for original submitters.

    Our rationale for applying confidentiality determinations to these documents is summarized in the following paragraphs.

    As discussed in the proposed rulemaking, application of confidentiality determinations is consistent with the non-CBI treatment of hazardous waste manifests at the Federal and state level. Manifests contain similar information as that required by the documents related to the export, import and transit of hazardous waste and export of conditionally excluded CRTs within the scope of this action. On February 7, 2014, EPA published the Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System; Electronic Manifests final rule (79 FR 7518) which made a categorical determination for individual RCRA hazardous waste manifest records and aggregate data. In that action, EPA concluded that information contained in individual manifested records and aggregate data are essentially public information and therefore is not eligible under Federal law for treatment as CBI. The effect of this decision was that EPA made a categorical determination that it will not accept any CBI claims that might be asserted in connection with processing, using, or retaining individual paper or electronic manifests or aggregate data (see 40 CFR 260.2(c)(1)). The decision in that action is consistent with how manifests are treated in many states that have policies that do not recognize CBI claims for manifests as individual documents or as aggregate data. Because the information contained in RCRA hazardous waste manifests is largely similar to the information contained in hazardous waste export and import documents, such as information about the waste being shipped (waste codes, type, quantity) and contact information for the generator, transporter, and destination or receiving facility, EPA concludes that application of confidentiality determinations in this action is consistent with the categorical determination that electronic manifests are not CBI.

    Furthermore, EPA believes that any CBI claim that might be asserted with respect to the hazardous waste documents within the scope of this action would be extremely difficult to sustain under the substantive CBI criteria set forth in the Agency's CBI regulations (40 CFR part 2, subpart B). For example, to make a CBI claim, a business must satisfactorily show that it has taken reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of the information, and that it intends to continue to take such measures. The documents related to the export, import, and transit of hazardous waste and export of excluded CRTs submitted to EPA are also shared with several commercial entities while they are being processed and used. As a result, a business concerned with protecting its commercial information would find it exceedingly difficult to protect its records from disclosure by all the other persons who come into contact with the documents.

    Moreover, to substantiate a CBI claim, a business must also show that the information is not, and has not been, reasonably obtainable without the business's consent by other persons (other than governmental bodies) by use of legitimate means (other than discovery based on a showing of special need in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding). Since the documents are shared with several commercial entities throughout the chain of custody of a hazardous waste shipment, they are easily accessible to other parties without the business's explicit consent.

    For these reasons, EPA believes that any CBI claim that might be asserted with respect to hazardous waste export and import documents would be difficult to sustain under the substantive CBI criteria (40 CFR part 2, subpart B).

    EPA has also established precedent in determining that the information contained in certain hazardous waste export documents is not entitled to confidential treatment. To date, our records indicate that EPA has received four assertions of confidentiality for documents within the scope of this action and for which EPA has made a CBI determination: One from Horizon Environment, Inc. in 2004, two from Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. in 2010 and 2011, and one from Waste Technologies Industries in 1994. In three of the four cases, the Agency determined that the information claimed as confidential was not entitled to confidential treatment.

    In the confidentiality claims presented by Horizon Environment, Inc. and Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., both companies asserted confidentiality for certain hazardous waste export documents that were responsive to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to EPA. The FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a), section 3007(b) of RCRA, and EPA regulations implementing the FOIA and RCRA section 3007(b) generally mandate the disclosure to the public of information and records in the possession of government agencies. However, there are nine categories of information that may be exempt from disclosure, and one such category of information (Exemption 4) is for “trade secrets and commercial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential” (see 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Under these statutes and regulations, “business information” means information which pertains to the interests of a business, was acquired or developed by the business, and which is possessed by EPA in a recorded form (see 40 CFR 2.201(c)). Such business information may be claimed by an “affected business” to be entitled to treatment as CBI if the business information is a “trade secret” or other type of proprietary information which produces business or competitive advantages for the business, such that the business has a legally protected right to limit the use of the information or its disclosure to others. See § 2.201(e).

    In order for information to meet the requirements of Exemption 4, EPA must find that the information is either (1) a trade secret; or (2) commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential (commonly referred to as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI)). Horizon Environment's claims related to export notices, and Johnson Controls Battery Group's claims related to annual reports. Both companies claimed the information to be confidential, but did not claim that the information was privileged. Information that is required to be submitted to the Government is confidential if its “disclosure would be likely either (1) to impair the Government' s ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.”' Critical Mass, 975 F.2d at 878 (quoting National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (DC Cir. 1974)) (footnote omitted). In these cases, the Agency had the authority to require the submission of the information and exercised it. Therefore, EPA concluded that the information was a required submission and was not voluntary.

    EPA also found that the information the companies claimed as confidential did not meet EPA's CBI criteria. As set forth in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 2.208, required business information is entitled to confidential treatment if: The business has satisfactorily shown that disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the business's competitive position. After careful consideration of the arguments submitted by both companies, EPA concluded that neither claim explained specifically how disclosure of the information in the submissions would likely cause substantial competitive harm to the companies, and therefore did not support the claim of competitive harm. Accordingly, EPA concluded that release of this was not likely to cause substantial harm to the companies' competitive positions.

    As a result of these analyses, EPA found that the information the companies claimed as confidential was not within the scope of Exemption 4 of the FOIA.

    For the fourth confidentiality claim submitted by Waste Technologies Industries in 1994, EPA determined that the identities and addresses of the foreign generators listed in its import notification letters were entitled to confidential treatment under EPA's criteria (40 CFR 2.208). Since that time, EPA promulgated the Electronic Manifest final rule in which it was determined that manifests and the data contained therein are not CBI (79 FR 7518). Because the contact information of foreign generators is a required data element on manifests, this information is no longer treated as confidential. EPA found the record pertaining to this case after the proposed rule was published.

    Based on EPA's analysis and decision in three of the four confidentiality claims asserted by companies for their hazardous waste export notices and annual reports, EPA expects to similarly conclude that these and the other documents within the scope of this rulemaking are not entitled to confidential treatment. As for the fourth decision in the Waste Technologies Industries' claim, EPA's more recent determination that manifests are no longer CBI supersedes the decision to withhold the information as confidential in 1994.

    Finally, EPA has never received a claim of confidentiality from a third-party business with respect to hazardous waste export and import documentation. As described previously, EPA issues a Federal Register notice each year requesting comment from affected businesses (other than original submitters), as defined in 40 CFR 2.201(d), on their need to assert confidentiality claims for documents submitted to EPA related to hazardous waste exports and imports as well as data compiled from such documents, prior to EPA considering such documents releasable upon public request. To date, EPA has never received a comment from any business not an original submitter as a result of the annual Federal Register notice.

    EPA received one comment in response to our request for input about applying confidentiality determinations to individual documents and aggregate data related to hazardous waste export and import shipments. In its comment, a trade association for the hazardous waste treatment industry expressed concern about the ability of competitors to gain an unfair advantage from access to aggregate export and import data. The commenter also indicated that access to aggregate data could pose national security concerns if sensitive shipment information were available to parties with malicious intent. The commenter stated that aggregate shipment data are a more efficient means to gain access to customer lists and export and import patterns compared to individual documents, which would require significant cost and labor to compile. However, as stated previously, at the Federal level and in many states, CBI claims are not accepted with respect to individual or aggregate manifest data. The main difference between the manifest and the export and import documents is that the manifest provides information on domestic management of hazardous waste shipments, while the export and import documents provide information related to both the domestic and the international part of those shipments. Because the information contained in hazardous waste export and import documents is so similar to that contained in manifests, EPA believes that it is appropriate to treat the domestic and international shipping documents the same.

    Nonetheless, while EPA is not accepting CBI claims for either individual documents or aggregate data related to exports and imports, EPA recognizes that the information in its possession may not be ready for general release to the public because it is not yet “final.” As with manifests, hazardous waste exporters, importers, receiving facilities and brokers acting on their behalf need sufficient time to address discrepancies or exceptions related to hazardous waste shipments and to verify and correct data recorded on their documents. Until such time as these corrections can be made and data can be verified and finalized, the data in these documents, just as in manifests, will be considered “in process.” To that end, unless otherwise required by Federal law, EPA is not considering such documents to be final until March 1 of the year after which the shipments occur. EPA believes this timeframe is responsive to the concerns about competitive harm and national security risk with respect to access to aggregate data. EPA believes that this relatively long timeframe also makes it more likely that the shipment will have been received and the waste recovered or disposed by the time the documents are considered final.

    Furthermore, in response to the national security concerns raised by commenters on the proposed rule and on the e-manifest user fee proposed rule (81 FR 49072, July 26, 2016), EPA has consulted with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to determine whether public access to certain shipment information in the e-Manifest system poses a significant chemical security risk and if so, the action the Agency should take to mitigate that risk. Because the export and import data are similar to the data collected on manifests, EPA will apply mitigating measures to manage export and import data in a manner consistent with those implemented by the e-Manifest system.

    III. Costs and Benefits of the Final Rule A. Cost Impacts

    The Agency conducted an economic assessment for the proposed rule to this action which evaluated costs, cost savings, benefits, and other impacts, such as environmental justice, children's health, unfunded mandates, regulatory takings, and small entity impacts. The costs incurred by the regulated community under the proposed rule were associated with the proposed internet posting requirement only. Because EPA is not finalizing the proposed internet posting requirement, there are no costs associated with this action and the economic assessment conducted for the proposed rule no longer applies. Rather, the final rule reduces burden and results in cost-savings.

    B. Benefits

    There are a number of qualitative benefits associated with this final rule. By providing a consistent approach to addressing confidentiality claims with respect to the documents within the scope of this rulemaking, this action will result in cost-savings and greater efficiency to both the regulated community and EPA. The Agency will not incur the costs associated with developing and publishing the annual Federal Register notice requesting comment from affected businesses (other than original submitters), as defined in 40 CFR 2.201(d), on their need to assert confidentiality claims for documents submitted to EPA related to hazardous waste exports and imports. Industry cost-savings result from the avoided costs associated with reading and responding to the Federal Register notice. Furthermore, this action will achieve greater transparency by excluding export and import documents from CBI claims.

    IV. State Authorization A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to administer their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the Federal program within the State. Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have primary enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for State authorization are found at 40 CFR part 271. Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a State with final RCRA authorization administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the Federal program in that State. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized State, and EPA could not issue permits for any facilities in that State, since only the State was authorized to issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent Federal requirements were promulgated, the State was obligated to enact equivalent authorities within specified time frames. However, the new Federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized State until the State adopted the Federal requirements as State law.

    In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under HSWA authority take effect in authorized States at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. EPA is directed by the statute to implement these requirements and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. While States must still adopt HSWA related provisions as State law to retain final authorization, EPA implements the HSWA provisions in authorized States until the States do so.

    Authorized States are required to modify their programs only when EPA enacts Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the States to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program (see also 40 CFR 271.1). Therefore, authorized States may, but are not required to, adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that are considered less stringent than previous Federal regulations.

    B. Effect on State Authorization

    Because of the Federal government's special role in matters of foreign policy, EPA does not authorize States to administer Federal import/export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. This approach of having Federal, rather than State, administering of the import/export functions promotes national coordination, uniformity and the expeditious transmission of information between the United States and foreign countries.

    Although States do not receive authorization to administer the Federal government's import/export functions in 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, or the import/export relation functions in any other section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, State programs are still required to adopt the provisions in this rule to maintain their equivalency with the Federal program (see 40 CFR 271.10(e)).

    This final rule contains amendments to 40 CFR 260.2 such that no claim of business confidentiality may be asserted by any person with respect to information from cathode ray tube export documents prepared, used and submitted under §§ 261.39(a)(5) and 261.41(a) and hazardous waste export, import, and transit documents prepared, used and submitted under §§ 262.82, 262.83, 262.84, 263.20, 264.12, 264.71, 265.12, 265.71, and 267.71.

    The States that have previously adopted 40 CFR part 262, subparts E, F and H, 40 CFR part 263, 40 CFR part 264, 40 CFR part 265, and any other import/export related regulations, and that will be adopting the revisions in the Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Final Rule (81 FR 85696) must adopt the revisions to those provisions in this final rule. But only States that have previously adopted the optional CRT conditional exclusion in 40 CFR 261.39 are required to adopt the revisions related to that exclusion in this final rule.

    When a State adopts the import/export provisions in this rule, they must not replace Federal or international references or terms with State references or terms.

    The provisions of this rule will take effect in all States on the effective date of the rule, since these export and import requirements will be administered by the Federal government as a foreign policy matter, and will not be administered by States.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This final rule is a non-significant regulatory action because it does not have a significant economic impact nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived review.

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

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This final rule provides burden reduction by providing a consistent approach to addressing confidentiality claims with respect to the documents within the scope of this rulemaking. As a result, this action will result in cost-savings and greater efficiency for industry and EPA. EPA will no longer expend resources to publish an annual Federal Register notice related to confidential business information and industry will avoid the costs and burden associated with reading and responding to the annual Federal Register notice.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are hazardous waste exporters, importers, receiving facilities and brokers acting on their behalf. There are no costs associated with this action; rather, the final rule results in cost-savings. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, it is not subject to Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications because the state and local governments do not administer the export and import requirements under RCRA. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No exporters, importers or transporters affected by this action are known to be owned by Tribal governments or located within or adjacent to Tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

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

    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because this action only applies a confidentiality determination such that no person can assert confidential business information (CBI) claims for documents related to the export, import, and transit of hazardous waste and export of excluded cathode ray tubes (CRTs).

    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 260

    Environmental protection, Cathode ray tubes (CRTs), Confidential business information, Exports, Hazardous waste, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Cathode ray tubes (CRTs), Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information, Exports, Hazardous waste, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 11, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 260, 261, and 262 as follows:

    PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.

    2. Amend § 260.2 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 260.2 Availability of information; confidentiality of information.

    (b) Except as provided under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, any person who submits information to EPA in accordance with parts 260 through 266 and 268 of this chapter may assert a claim of business confidentiality covering part or all of that information by following the procedures set forth in § 2.203(b) of this chapter. Information covered by such a claim will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth in part 2, subpart B, of this chapter.

    (d)(1) After June 26, 2018, no claim of business confidentiality may be asserted by any person with respect to information contained in cathode ray tube export documents prepared, used and submitted under §§ 261.39(a)(5) and 261.41(a) of this chapter, and with respect to information contained in hazardous waste export, import, and transit documents prepared, used and submitted under §§ 262.82, 262.83, 262.84, 263.20, 264.12, 264.71, 265.12, 265.71, and 267.71 of this chapter, whether submitted electronically into EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System or in paper format.

    (2) EPA will make any cathode ray tube export documents prepared, used and submitted under §§ 261.39(a)(5) and 261.41(a) of this chapter, and any hazardous waste export, import, and transit documents prepared, used and submitted under §§ 262.82, 262.83, 262.84, 263.20, 264.12, 264.71, 265.12, 265.71, and 267.71 of this chapter available to the public under this section when these electronic or paper documents are considered by EPA to be final documents. These submitted electronic and paper documents related to hazardous waste exports, imports and transits and cathode ray tube exports are considered by EPA to be final documents on March 1 of the calendar year after the related cathode ray tube exports or hazardous waste exports, imports, or transits occur.

    PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.

    4. Amend § 261.39 by revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv) to read as follows:
    § 261.39 Conditional Exclusion for Used, Broken Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) and Processed CRT Glass Undergoing Recycling.

    (a) * * *

    (5) * * *

    (iv) EPA will provide a complete notification to the receiving country and any transit countries. A notification is complete when EPA receives a notification which EPA determines satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section.

    PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 5. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.

    6. Amend § 262.83 by revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (f)(9) to read as follows:
    § 262.83 Exports of hazardous waste.

    (b) * * *

    (5) For cases where the proposed country of import and recovery or disposal operations are not covered under an international agreement to which both the United States and the country of import are parties, EPA will coordinate with the Department of State to provide the complete notification to country of import and any countries of transit. In all other cases, EPA will provide the notification directly to the country of import and any countries of transit. A notification is complete when EPA receives a notification which EPA determines satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (xiii) of this section.

    (f) * * *

    (9) Upon request by EPA, U.S. exporters, importers, or recovery facilities must submit to EPA copies of contracts, chain of contracts, or equivalent arrangements (when the movement occurs between parties controlled by the same corporate or legal entity).

    7. Amend § 262.84 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (f)(8) to read as follows:
    § 262.84 Imports of hazardous waste.

    (b) * * *

    (4) A notification is complete when EPA determines the notification satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (xiii) of this section.

    (f) * * *

    (8) Upon request by EPA, importers or disposal or recovery facilities must submit to EPA copies of contracts, chain of contracts, or equivalent arrangements (when the movement occurs between parties controlled by the same corporate or legal entity).

    [FR Doc. 2017-27525 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002; FRL-9972-38-Region 3] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the C&D Recycling Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the C&D Recycling Superfund Site (Site), located in Foster Township, Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth), through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude EPA from taking future actions at the Site under Superfund.

    DATES:

    This direct final deletion is effective February 26, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 25, 2018. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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:

    Gregory Voigt, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Mail Code 3HS21, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19013, (215) 814-5737, email: v[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction

    EPA Region III is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the C&D Recycling Superfund Site, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register.

    (2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth 30 working days for review of this direct final Notice of Deletion and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the Commonwealth, through PADEP, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the Standard Speaker. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    The C&D Recycling Superfund Site (the Site) (CERCLIS ID PAD021449244) encompasses approximately 110 acres and is located in a rural area along Brickyard Road in Foster Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. From 1963 to 1978, Lurgan Corporation operated a metal reclamation facility at the Site. In 1979, the business was conveyed to C&D Recycling, Inc. Both Lurgan Corporation and C&D Recycling, Inc.'s operations involved the reclamation of metals (i.e., copper and/or lead) from cable and/or scrap metal transported to the Site. Available documentation suggests that lead was recovered from cable and wire until the mid-1970's, after which limited burning of lead cable at the Site occurred. Typical Site operations involved mechanical removal of the outer plastic casing and burning of the inner lining, sheathing or insulation to expose the copper cable in one of five furnaces located at the Site. The copper was returned to the generator and the plastic casing was stockpiled at the Site. Site operations ceased in 1984. Currently, portions of the Site are being used as a wildlife refuge, while other portions are either undeveloped, or contain private residences.

    EPA and PADEP collected analytical data in 1984 and 1985 to evaluate the relative hazards posed by the Site in the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). An HRS score of 43.92 was calculated for the Site in April 1985, based primarily upon the elevated levels of contamination in Site soils, and sediment suspended within the shallow dairy farm well existing at the Site. In September 1985, EPA proposed the Site for inclusion on the NPL (50 FR 37630). The Site was placed on the NPL on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154). In April 1986, PADEP requested that EPA take the lead on the Site response action.

    EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent, Docket Number III-87-30-DC, on September 1, 1987, which was subsequently amended in June 1988, Docket Number III-87-31-DC, (collectively Consent Order) with AT&T Nassau Metals Corporation (Nassau) under which Nassau was required to: (1) Implement erosion controls and security measures to stabilize the Site; and (2) investigate the nature and extent of contamination and risks and develop alternatives to address the contamination at the Site. Nassau was the only potentially responsible party (PRP) to cooperate with EPA with respect to Site response actions. At the time of the Consent Order, Nassau was a wholly owned subsidiary of Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Lucent). Lucent subsequently merged with Alcatel SA of France on December 1, 2006 to form Alcatel-Lucent SA. For clarity, Nassau and Lucent will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the PRP.

    The PRP conducted the following removal action activities under the Consent Order:

    • Consolidation and covering of ash piles at the Site;

    • Construction of sedimentation and erosion controls to minimize migration of contaminated soil from the Site in surface water runoff;

    • Installation of fencing and seeding to prevent exposure to contaminated soil areas; and

    • Removal of piles of cable casings and transport off-site for recycling.

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The RI/FS was initiated at the Site in September 1987. The final RI/FS Report was completed in January 1992 and approved by EPA in March 1992. The area of contamination identified in the RI/FS Report included the following:

    • Approximately 26,273 cubic yards (yds 3) of soil contaminated with lead, copper, antimony and/or other contaminants;

    • Several small piles of ash (approximately 165 yds 3) resulting from the burning of material at the Site contaminated with lead, copper, and low levels of dioxins and furans;

    • Approximately 1,200 linear feet of Mill Hopper Creek (the Creek) containing sediment contaminated with lead, copper, and zinc;

    • A 0.5-acre pond (Mill Hopper Pond or the Pond) with contaminated sediment (approximately 1,900 yds 3);

    • Abarn and milkhouse used when the property at the Site was a dairy farm;

    • A main facility building including four furnaces used to burn cable;

    • An underground storm water sewer system, which contained approximately 24 yds 3 of contaminated sediment; and

    • A small isolated furnace once used to burn cable.

    Selected Remedy

    EPA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site on September 30, 1992. The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) specified in the ROD consisted of:

    1. Protection of human health and the environment;

    2. Source control and prevention of migration of contamination from the Site via wind and surface water transport;

    3. Source control of contaminants in soil such that leaching of contamination to groundwater will not occur in the future;

    4. Source control of soil, sediment, and ash with lead concentrations greater than 500 parts per million (ppm);

    5. Decontamination of Site buildings; and

    6. Prevention to exposure to contaminants.

    The remedy selected in the ROD (Selected Remedy) addressed contaminated soil, ash, sediment, buildings, and structures and consisted of the following components:

    1. Confirmation, e.g., via sampling, of the areal limits of soil and sediment with lead contamination above 500 ppm (including soil beneath buildings and concrete slabs constructed after 1963 as well as pavement and sediment in Mill Hopper Creek and wetlands);

    2. Performance of a Phase 1B archeological survey in areas possessing high or moderate archeological sensitivity potentially impacted by the Remedial Action;

    3. Removal and off-Site disposal and/or recycling of casing and wire;

    4. Excavation of all soil with lead contamination above 500 ppm resulting from Site operations (excluding soil beneath buildings and concrete slabs constructed after 1963, or pavement which shall otherwise be maintained to prevent migration of contamination from the Site);

    5. Excavation of sediment from the banks of Mill Hopper Pond with lead levels greater than 500 ppm and excavation of the top two feet of sediment (or an amount sufficient to secure a new substrate) from the pond bottom to ensure that pond water quality is not impacted;

    6. Removal of sediment within Mill Hopper Creek contaminated with lead above 500 ppm;

    7. Removal and sampling of all sediment located within the storm water sewer system located at the Site and evaluation of the system's integrity (including drainage ditches) to determine the potential for releases of hazardous substances from the Site into the soil and ground water and any necessary response actions;

    8. Excavation of all ash located at the Site;

    9. Post excavation/removal sampling to confirm that ash, soil and sediment cleanup levels are met;

    10. On-Site stabilization of the contaminated soil and sediment, excavated and removed as described above, to remove any characteristic of hazardous waste;

    11. On-Site stabilization of the contaminated ash, excavated as described above, to remove any characteristic of hazardous waste;

    12. Off-Site disposal of stabilized soil, sediment, and ash into a non-hazardous (RCRA Subtitle D) waste disposal facility;

    13. Decontamination of Site buildings with lead levels in walls and floors above 500 ppm, including dismantling of non-structural components and removal of equipment and debris which may inhibit decontamination to required levels, or demolition of buildings that cannot be cleaned to 500 ppm lead;

    14. Dismantling of the old furnace and other structures, as necessary, which inhibit soil or sediment remediation and which shall not be maintained, as necessary, to prevent migration of contaminants from the Site;

    15. Off-Site disposal of material generated from dismantling of Site buildings into a non-hazardous (Subtitle D) waste disposal facility or decontamination and recycling of dismantled material;

    16. Performance of biota toxicity tests on remaining soil and sediment to ensure that remediated soil (i.e., soil with lead levels no higher than 500 ppm) does not pose a threat to the environment (procedures to be determined during Remedial Design);

    17. Site grading, revegetation, and related work, to ensure that Site topography and drainage ways adequately convey water from the Site, and that soil excavation does not result in low lying areas;

    18. Air monitoring during on-Site activities, and implementation of dust control or other necessary abatement actions to prevent migration of contaminants to the surrounding community during the Remedial Action;

    19. Abandoning wells which serve no useful long-term purpose;

    20. Periodic monitoring of ground water and surface water; and

    21. If the soil beneath pavement, or soil beneath buildings and concrete slabs constructed after 1963, contains concentrations of lead greater than 500 ppm and these structures are not demolished, then institutional controls, (e.g., deed restrictions) will be implemented to prevent residential use potentially affecting the protectiveness of the Selected Remedy, and to ensure that Site contaminants which may remain beneath buildings and pavement are properly identified.

    Consistent with the Site RAOs, the Selected Remedy included decontamination and/or demolition of contaminated buildings and structures; stabilization of contaminated soil, ash, and sediment with lead levels greater than 500 ppm, as needed; and disposal of the stabilized and/or decontaminated material into an off-Site landfill. As stated in the ROD, EPA determined that the selected soil cleanup level of 500 ppm lead (i.e., no confirmatory sample collected shall exceed 500 ppm) is protective of human health and would not impact the environment. The cleanup level of 500 ppm ensures that the average soil lead level remaining on any two-acre plot is less than approximately 235 ppm, including theoretical residential plots located on the Site. Thus, EPA determined that residual soil lead levels remaining at the Site are protective.

    Response Actions

    All Remedial Design (RD), Remedial Action (RA) and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities for the Site were conducted in accordance with a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) which was issued to the PRP on August 9, 1994 (EPA Docket No. III-94-18-DC). The UAO was subsequently converted to a Consent Decree that was signed and lodged with the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 22, 1998 (Consent Decree) (Civil Action No. 3:96-CV-562).

    The RD was performed from October 1996 through February 1997 and approved by EPA on May 8, 1998. During the RD phase, Site preparation work involved the removal of various types of debris and cable casings from the Site, as well as demolition and off-Site disposal of the old furnace.

    Construction of the RA was conducted between February 1998 and August 1999. EPA approved the September 27, 2000 Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) documenting completion of the RA. Biotoxicity sampling of the Pond and Creek and well abandonment, as selected in the ROD, were completed in 2003 and 2002, respectively. In June 2016, EPA approved the Work Completion Certification and Report (WCCR) documenting completion of these remaining components of the Selected Remedy.

    Performance Standards

    The 2000 RACR documented that the RA had attained the following Performance Standards as specified in the ROD:

    1. The Phase IB Archeological Survey shall comply with Guidelines on Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 48 FR.44716-42 (September 29, 1983), 36 CFR parts 65 and 800.

    2. Site activity shall not cause exceedance of Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards in Mill Hopper Creek, 25 PA Code §§ 93.3 through 93.8, or exceedance of background water quality in Mill Hopper Creek should background quality exceed Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards, 25 PA Code § 93.5 and water quality criteria for toxic substances of 25 PA Code Chapter 16. However, compliance with Chapter 16 regulations will consider the ambient background water quality of Mill Hopper Creek and Mill Hopper Pond.

    3. The stabilization process and/or earth moving shall not generate dust exceeding National Ambient Air Quality Standards within 100 feet of the Area of Contamination [Clean Air Act section 109, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead, 40 CFR 50.12, and particulate matter, 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 52, subpart NN] [Pennsylvania's Air Pollution Control Act, 25 PA Code §§ 123.1 et. seq, and 131.1 et. seq.]. Dust suppression methods, e.g., wind screens, water spray, or chemical agents, shall be utilized to minimize dust. Air monitoring shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix G [25 PA Code §§ 123.1 et. seq. and 131.1 et. seq.].

    4. Excavation and consolidation of the soil, sediment and ash shall comply with the Pennsylvania Erosion Control Regulations, 25 PA Code §§ 102.1 et. seq., Pennsylvania's Air Pollution Control Act, 25 PA Code §§ 123.1 et. seq. and 131.1 et. seq.

    5. Diversion of Mill Hopper Creek during implementation of Selected Remedy shall comply with Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Waterway Management Regulations, 25 PA Code § 105.1 et. Seq.

    6. Disposal of hazardous waste debris generated from the decontamination, dismantling and/or demolition of Site buildings, the old furnace and any other structures, shall comply with the Land Disposal Restriction requirements of 40 CFR part 268.

    7. The stabilized soil, sediment, and ash shall be analyzed using the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure. No sample of leachate from tested stabilized material shall exceed the levels specified in Table 20, below.

    8. Cleanup levels for contaminants of concern in soil and sediment (Table 20) shall not be exceeded in any soil or sediment sample, excluding areas not impacted by the Site, remaining after Site remediation.

    Table 20—Cleanup Levels for Contaminants of Potential Concern Contributing Excess Cancer Risk Greater Than 1 x 10-6 or Hazard Index Greater Than 1 Media Contaminant Clean-Up Level Soil Lead 500 ppm. Copper 3300 ppm. Antimony 35 ppm. PAHs 1 ppm. PCBs 2 ppm. Sediment Lead 500 ppm. Copper 2900 ppm. Antimony 35 ppm. PAHs 1 ppm. Stabilized Ash, Sediment and Soil (Extract) Arsenic 5 mg/L. Barium 100 mg/L. Cadmium 1 mg/L. Chromium 5 mg/L. Lead 5 mg/L. Mercury 0.2 mg/L. Selenium 1 mg/L. Building Surfaces Lead 50 ug/m3, or 500 ppm. Copper 1000 ug/m3, or 3300 ppm. Antimony 500 ug/m3, or 35 ppm.

    Post-RA sampling data demonstrated that the Selected Remedy achieved the RAOs selected in the ROD. Protection of human health and the environment (RAO #1) and prevention to exposure to contaminants (RAO #6) were achieved by ensuring that all performance standards selected in the ROD were met, as explained in Section 5.0 of the RACR. Source control RAOs (RAO #2, #3, and #4) were achieved by stabilizing contaminated soil, ash, and sediment with lead levels greater than 500 ppm, as needed; and by disposing the stabilized material into an off-Site landfill, as explained in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the RACR. Decontamination of on-Site buildings (RAO #5) was achieved by ensuring that all on-Site building surfaces were free from Site contaminants, as explained in Section 3.3 of RACR.

    During the RA, Site soils and sediments with identified lead concentrations of greater than the Site clean-up level of 500 ppm were excavated, stabilized as appropriate, and transported off-site for disposal at an approved facility. Soil was excavated to depths of up to four feet resulting in the removal of approximately 43,800 cubic yards of material. A total of 267 post-excavation soil samples were collected, and confirmed that all identified contamination was removed from the Site, and that the cleanup level for lead of 500 ppm selected in the ROD was achieved.

    As part of the RI/FS at the Site, a monitoring well network consisting of 17 wells was completed. The wells were sampled multiple times during the course of the RI/FS. In the ROD, EPA determined that the data obtained during performance of the RI/FS demonstrated that groundwater had not been impacted by Site activities. The ROD required additional monitoring of Site groundwater for lead to evaluate any possible impacts caused by the RA. One pre-construction and two post-construction groundwater sampling events were conducted. Four on-site shallow wells were sampled for lead to monitor groundwater quality. The groundwater sampling results confirmed that Site construction activities during the RA did not impact the groundwater underlying the Site. Since all of the groundwater monitoring activities selected in the ROD were completed, the remaining monitoring wells located on-Site were subsequently abandoned on August 26 through August 29, 2002.

    The ROD also selected the “performance of biota toxicity tests on remaining soil/sediment to ensure that remediated soil (i.e., soil with lead levels no higher than 500 ppm) does not pose a threat to the environment”. The biotoxicity testing procedures employed at the Site in order to meet the above-described ROD requirement were established in the Biotoxicity Testing Plan (BTP).

    The baseline biotoxicity sampling/evaluation was conducted in May 1998 prior to the start of the RA. This testing was conducted for the purpose of establishing the baseline biotoxicity of Site sediments that were known to contain lead concentrations that exceeded the Site cleanup goal of 500 ppm. The evaluation was conducted on samples collected at the Site and at a nearby off-site reference location (a pond approximately eight miles from the Site).

    The biotoxic effect threshold of Site sediments was established to be 842 ppm lead based on the results of the baseline biotoxicity evaluation. Three additional biotoxicity sampling events were conducted after the August 13, 1999 RA completion date in accordance with the BTP. The Year 1 event occurred on August 30, 2000, the Year 2 event occurred on September 20, 2002 and the Year 3 event occurred on October 29, 2003.

    During these three post-RA sampling events, three out of a total of 52 sediment sample results from the Pond and Creek were found to contain lead in excess of the 500 ppm Site cleanup level. In each instance, when an elevated sample result for lead was identified, the PRP performed additional sediment sampling to delineate the extent of lead sediment concentrations in excess of 500 ppm and then implemented a focused excavation program to remove these sediments from the Site. A total of eight sampling rounds associated with the three biotoxicity sampling events were conducted after completion of the RA.

    All lead analytical results of sediments remaining in place after the focused removal of sediments from the Pond and Creek were less than the Site lead cleanup goal of 500 ppm. Therefore, subsequent bioassay testing of the Year 1, 2 and 3 samples was not performed.

    Finally, sampling conducted by the PRP in 1989 as part of the RI/FS showed the isolated presence of low levels of dioxin in the ash piles stored on-Site. Specifically, two dioxin samples were collected at the Site in 1989 from two separate ash piles (designated ASH-B and ASH-F) which were subsequently excavated. The piles were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,7,8,-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) and specific 2,3,7,8-dioxin congeners. Both of the samples contained low levels of chlorinated dioxins/furans. After issuance of the 2012 preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil, by letter dated July 24, 2014, EPA required the PRP to collect additional soil samples at the Site to confirm that the Selected Remedy was protective of human health and the environment. By letter dated October 13, 2015, EPA informed the PRP that the sampling results indicated that dioxin did not exceed residential or commercial screening levels in any of the samples collected from native soil at the Site.

    EPA subsequently issued a Final Close Out Report (FCOR) for the Site dated October 4, 2016. The FCOR summarized all of the remedial activities conducted at the Site, and concluded that EPA has successfully completed all response actions for the Site in accordance with Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P).

    Operation and Maintenance

    An O&M Plan dated April 29, 1998 was approved by EPA as part of the RD. The O&M Plan identifies the O&M activities that would be performed at the Site after the RA was completed. The O&M activities were intended to address: (1) Erosion and sedimentation control measures until sufficient vegetative cover had re-established itself; (2) post-remedy ground water sampling; and (3) the sampling/inspection requirements specified in the BTP.

    RA activities were completed on August 13, 1999. Lucent conducted inspections of the Site for the first year after completion of the Site remediation activities. These inspections were conducted on a monthly basis and after known significant storm events (e.g., rain events over one inch), as outlined in the O&M Plan. Inspections were not performed during winter months when the ground was frozen or snow covered. After the first year of monthly inspections, quarterly inspections of the Site were conducted for the following four years as required by the O&M Plan. During each Site inspection, the vegetative cover, drainage channels and swales, and remediated Creek downstream of the Pond were inspected to verify that they were in good condition and functioning properly.

    In accordance with the O&M Plan, the revegetated Site was to be left in its natural state and not mowed and no future O&M is required.

    Institutional Controls

    The ROD selected ICs if soils containing concentrations of lead over 500 ppm remain beneath the pavement, or buildings and concrete slabs constructed on-Site after 1963. Since all Site soils with lead concentrations in excess of 500 ppm were removed from the Site during implementation of the Selected Remedy, no ICs are required at the Site. However, as an added precaution, in March 1999, the then-current owner of the original 46-acre C&D property which contains the main C&D Recycling building and several abandoned farm structures, known as Tax Parcel 11, filed a deed restriction in the land records for that parcel. This deed restriction limits access to the Site, and prevents the Tax Parcel 11 from being used for residential, commercial, agricultural and/or recreational purposes.

    In May 2002, Tax Parcel 11 was purchased at a tax sale, and title to the property was redeeded under a corporation named “Green Meadows Conservancy, Inc.” on July 10, 2006. Tax Parcel 11 property is now classified as a wildlife preserve and there are no plans for its redevelopment.

    Based on the above information, EPA has determined that there are no hazardous substances present on-Site above levels allowing for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure now that the Selected Remedy is complete. The Site is, therefore, protective of human health and the environment. No Five-Year Reviews have been performed and they are not required pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c).

    Community Involvement

    EPA community relations staff conducted an active campaign to ensure that the residents were well informed about activities at the Site. Community relations activities included the following:

    • Public Meetings: May 1997.

    • Township Supervisor Meetings: April 1997 and May 1998.

    • Fact Sheets: April 1998, December 1998, and June 1999.

    Additionally, during the RA, EPA's Remedial Project Manager (RPM) met with Foster Township representatives on a weekly basis to provide an update on the work accomplished and the upcoming scheduled work.

    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's community involvement activities associated with this deletion will consist of placing the deletion docket in the local Site information repository and placing a public notice (of EPA's intent to delete the Site from the NPL) in the Standard Speaker, a local newspaper of general circulation.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    Construction of the Selected Remedy at the Site has been completed and O&M was completed in accordance with the EPA-approved O&M Plan. All RAOs, Performance Standards, and cleanup goals established in the ROD have been achieved and the Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment. No further Superfund response is necessary to protect human health and the environment.

    The Site Deletion procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have been followed for the deletion of the Site.

    V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective February 26, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 25, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing “PA”, “C & D Recycling”, “Foster Township”.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27801 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 372 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0197; FRL-9970-02] RIN 2070-AK32 Community Right-To-Know; Adopting 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting; Final Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In the Federal Register of August 17, 2017, EPA published both a direct final rule and a proposed rule to update the list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes subject to reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to reflect the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 2017 NAICS code revision. As noted in the direct final rule, if EPA received relevant adverse comment on the proposed update, the Agency would publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct final action will not take effect, and instead proceed to issue a final rule based on the parallel proposed rule. The Agency did receive a relevant adverse comment on the proposed update, and withdrew the direct final rule. This final rule addresses the comment made on EPA's proposed rulemaking previously published for this action.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on January 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0197, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Stephanie Griffin, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division, Mailcode 7410M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-1463; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Information Center; telephone number: (800) 424-9346, TDD (800) 553-7672; website: https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you own or operate facilities that have 10 or more full-time employees or the equivalent of 20,000 employee hours per year that manufacture, process, or otherwise use toxic chemicals listed on the TRI, and that are required under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) or section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) to report annually to EPA and States or Tribes their environmental releases or other waste management quantities of covered chemicals. (A rule was published on April 19, 2012 (77 FR 23409), requiring facilities located in Indian country to report to the appropriate tribal government official and EPA instead of to the state and EPA).

    The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Facilities included in the following 2012 NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 211112*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512220, 512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*. (*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.)

    • Facilities included in the following 2012 NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to facilities previously classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (corresponds to SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems).

    • Federal facilities. Under Executive Order 13693 (80 FR 15871, March 25, 2015), all federal facilities are required to comply with the provisions set forth in section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the PPA. On June 10, 2015, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued Instructions for Implementing Executive Order 13693, requiring federal agencies and contractors to comply with these laws regardless of NAICS code delineations (see 80 FR 34149, June 15, 2015).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    II. Background A. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is taking final action under sections 313(g)(1) and 328 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(g)(1) and 11048. In general, section 313 of EPCRA requires owners and operators of covered facilities in specified SIC codes that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above specified threshold levels to report certain facility specific information about such chemicals, including the annual releases and other waste management quantities. Section 313(g)(1) of EPCRA requires EPA to publish a uniform toxic chemical release form for these reporting purposes, and it also prescribes, in general terms, the types of information that must be submitted on the form. Congress also granted EPA broad rulemaking authority to allow the Agency to fully implement the statute. EPCRA section 328 states that: “The Administrator may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 11048.

    B. What action is the Agency taking?

    In response to OMB's revisions to the NAICS codes effective January 1, 2017, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 372 to include the relevant 2017 NAICS codes for TRI reporting. EPA is also modifying the list of exceptions and limitations previously included in the CFR for the applicable NAICS codes for TRI reporting purposes.

    Under this action, TRI reporting requirements remain unchanged. However, due to the 2017 NAICS modifications, some facilities will need to modify their reported NAICS codes as outlined in the table in Unit II.B., which identifies only the revised TRI NAICS reporting codes and is not an exhaustive list of all NAICS reporting codes subject to EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607. A complete listing of all TRI covered facilities can be found in the regulations at 40 CFR 372.23.

    The Agency received a comment on the proposed rule, which is addressed more fully in Unit II.C., stating that the listing of updated NAICS codes in the CFR text was incomplete, in that it did not include the update to the code for natural gas extraction facilities. The Agency agrees with that comment and is including the update for that NAICS code in the table in Unit II.B. and in the final CFR text.

    2012 NAICS code 2012 NAICS and U.S. description 2017 NAICS code 2017 NAICS and U.S. description 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 211130 Natural Gas Extraction. 212231 Lead Ore and Zinc Ore Mining  212230 * Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining. 212234 Copper Ore and Nickel Ore Mining 333911 Pump and Pumping Equipment Manufacturing 333914 Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing. 333913 Measuring and Dispensing Pump Manufacturing 335221 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing 335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing. 335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing 335224 Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing 335228 Other Major Household Appliance Manufacturing 512220 Integrated Record Production/Distribution. 512250 Record Production and Distribution
  • This merges both TRI-covered and non-TRI-covered NAICS codes. Only 512220 (Integrated Record Production/Distribution) was covered by TRI. TRI will note that only the “Integrated Record Production/Distribution” facilities under NAICS code 512250 are required to report.
  • 541712 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) 541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology.
  • This merges both TRI-covered and non-TRI-covered NAICS codes. Only 541712 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)) was covered by TRI. TRI will note that only the “Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)” facilities under NAICS code 541713 are required to report. TRI does not include all facilities classified under NAICS code 541712, and the same limitations will be extended to NAICS code 541713.
  • 541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology).
  • TRI does not include all facilities classified under NAICS code 541712, and the same limitations will be extended to NAICS code 541715. TRI will specify which facilities under NAICS code 541715 are required to report.
  • * A conforming update is also being made to 40 CFR 372.38(h).

    Crosswalk tables between all 2012 NAICS codes and 2017 NAICS codes can be found on the internet at http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.

    EPA is also modifying the list of exceptions and limitations previously included in the CFR for the applicable NAICS codes for TRI reporting purposes. Because NAICS codes may cross-reference some SIC codes in both TRI-covered and non-covered TRI sectors, EPA has historically included descriptive text in 40 CFR part 372 to help indicate exceptions and limitations to TRI coverage for a specific NAICS code in order to better correspond with the previous SIC code descriptors. However, OMB updates NAICS codes every five years, and these updates may require a corresponding change by EPA to the regulatory text describing any exceptions or limitations to the scope of a particular NAICS code. Consequently, this descriptive text does not always align fully with SIC codes' full descriptions.

    For example, historically, 40 CFR part 372 would list NAICS code 323211 with the following exception: “Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in reproducing text, drawings, plans, maps, or other copy, by blueprinting, photocopying, mimeographing, or other methods of duplication other than printing or microfilming (i.e., instant printing) (previously classified under SIC 7334, Photocopying and Duplicating Services, (instant printing))”. This action simplifies the listing to display only the SIC code and title rather than include the description: “Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7334, Photocopying and Duplicating Services”. The Agency received no comments, adverse or otherwise, on this type of modification, and so is finalizing this language in the CFR.

    Moving forward, in 40 CFR part 372, EPA will not include descriptive text for SIC codes when listing the limitations and exceptions applicable to TRI-covered NAICS codes. Instead, the Agency will simply list the SIC codes, including their titles, as applicable limitations and exceptions. Because exceptions and limitations are included in 40 CFR part 372.23(b) and (c) to align the listing of NAICS codes with the list of SIC codes covered by TRI reporting requirements as shown in 40 CFR part 372.23(a), the SIC codes rather than the descriptive text defines the types of facilities covered by TRI. By removing the descriptive text from the exceptions and limitations listed in these two paragraphs, this action mitigates potential confusion caused by qualitative descriptions of SIC codes and does not alter the universe of the facilities affected by TRI reporting requirements. Facilities with questions regarding the SIC code descriptions should refer to the SIC manual, available at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sicsearch.html.

    C. Why did the Agency withdraw the direct final rule?

    EPA previously received relevant adverse public comment on the direct final rule. While the commenter largely supported the update to OMB's 2017 NAICS codes, it noted that the 2012 NAICS code 211112 (Natural Gas Liquid Extraction) was not included in the direct final rule's revised codes, although OMB had updated NAICS code 211112 to NAICS code 211130 (Natural Gas Extraction) in 2017. EPA agrees with this comment. The 2012 NAICS code 211112, which was updated to 211130 in the 2017 NAICS codes revision, was intended to be captured in the direct final rule. The direct final inadvertently omitted this update. Thus, EPA withdrew the direct final and is proceeding to amend the NAICS code list with this final rule.

    D. What are the incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA analyzed the potential costs and benefits associated with this action, and determined that since this action will not add or remove any reporting requirements, there is no net increase in respondent burden or other economic impacts.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Facilities that are affected by the rule are already required to report their industrial classification codes on the approved reporting forms under section 313 of EPCRA and 6607 of the PPA. In addition, OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 372 under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2025-0009 (EPA ICR No. 1363-21) for Form R and Form A. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This final rule adds no new reporting requirements, and there would be no net increase in respondent burden. This rule would only update the NAICS codes already reported by respondents. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The action would impose no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is a procedural change and does not have any impact on human health or the environment.

    IV. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals.

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

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 372—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

    2. Amend §  372.22 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:
    §  372.22 Covered facilities for toxic chemical release reporting.

    (b) The facility is in a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) (as in effect on January 1, 1987) major group or industry code listed in §  372.23(a), for which the corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (as in effect on January 1, 2017, for reporting year 2018 and thereafter) subsector and industry codes are listed in §§  372.23(b) and 372.23(c) by virtue of the fact that it meets one of the following criteria:

    3. Amend §  372.23 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    §  372.23 SIC and NAICS codes to which this Part applies.

    (b) NAICS codes that correspond to SIC codes 20 through 39.

    Subsector code or Industry code Exceptions and/or limitations 311—Food Manufacturing Except 311119—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 0723, Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning; Except 311340—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5441, Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores; Except 311352—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5441, Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores; Except 311611—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 0751, Livestock Services, Except Veterinary; Except 311612—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5147, Meats and Meat Products; Except 311811—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5461, Retail Bakeries; 312—Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing Except 312112—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5149, Groceries and Related Products, Not Elsewhere Classified; Except 312230—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, except facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis; 313—Textile Mills Except 313310—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5131, Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods; and facilities previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, except facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis; 314—Textile Product Mills Except 314120—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5714, Drapery, Curtain, and Upholstery Stores; Except 314999—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, except facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis; 315—Apparel Manufacturing Except 315220—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5699, Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores; 316—Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 321—Wood Product Manufacturing 322—Paper Manufacturing 323—Printing and Related Support Activities Except 323111—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7334, Photocopying and Duplicating Services; 324—Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 325—Chemical Manufacturing Except 325998—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified; 326—Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing Except 326212—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7534, Tire Retreading and Repair Shops; 327—Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing Except 327110—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5719, Miscellaneous Home Furnishings Stores; 331—Primary Metal Manufacturing 332—Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 333—Machinery Manufacturing 334—Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing Except 334614—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7372, Prepackaged Software; and to facilities previously classified under SIC 7819, Services Allied to Motion Picture Production; 335—Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing Except 335312—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7694, Armature Rewinding Shops; 336—Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 337—Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing Except 337110—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores; Except 337121—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores; Except 337122—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores; 339—Miscellaneous Manufacturing Except 339113—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5999, Miscellaneous Retail Stores, Not Elsewhere Classified; Except 339115—Exception is limited to lens grinding facilities previously classified under SIC 5995, Optical Goods Stores; Except 339116—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 8072, Dental Laboratories; 111998—All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 2099, Food Preparations, Not Elsewhere Classified; 113310—Logging 211130—Natural Gas Extraction Limited to facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas and previously classified under SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified; 212324—Kaolin and Ball Clay Mining Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated; 212325—Mining Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated; 212393—Other Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated; 212399—All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated; 488390—Other Support Activities for Water Transportation Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3731, Shipbuilding and Repairing; 511110—Newspaper Publishers 511120—Periodical Publishers 511130—Book Publishers 511140—Directory and Mailing List Publishers Except facilities previously classified under SIC 7331, Direct Mail Advertising Services; 511191—Greeting Card Publishers 511199—All Other Publishers 512230—Music Publishers Except facilities previously classified under SIC 8999, Services, Not Elsewhere Classified; 512250—Record Production and Distribution Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3652, Phonograph Records and Prerecorded Audio Tapes and Disks; 519130—Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals Limited to Internet publishing facilities previously classified under SIC 2711, Newspapers: Publishing, or Publishing and Printing; facilities previously classified under SIC 2721, Periodicals: Publishing, or Publishing and Printing; facilities previously classified under SIC 2731, Books: Publishing, or Publishing and Printing; facilities previously classified under SIC 2741, Miscellaneous Publishing; facilities previously classified under SIC 2771, Greeting Cards; Except for facilities primarily engaged in web search portals; 541713—Research and Development in Nanotechnology Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3764, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Units and Propulsion Unit Parts; and facilities previously classified under SIC 3769, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment, Not Elsewhere Classified; 541715—Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3764, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Units and Propulsion Unit Parts; and facilities previously classified under SIC 3769, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment, Not Elsewhere Classified; 811490—Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3732, Boat Building and Repairing.

    (c) NAICS codes that correspond to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39.

    Subsector or Industry code Exceptions and/or limitations 212111—Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining 212112—Bituminous Coal and Underground Mining 212113—Anthracite Mining 212221—Gold Ore Mining 212222—Silver Ore Mining 212230—Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining 212299—Other Metal Ore Mining 221111—Hydroelectric Power Generation Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221112—Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221113—Nuclear Electric Power Generation Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221118—Other Electric Power Generation Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221121—Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221122—Electric Power Distribution Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221330—Steam and Air Conditioning Supply Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 4939, Combination Utility Services, Not Elsewhere Classified. 424690—Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 424710—Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 425110—Business to Business Electronic Markets Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified. 425120—Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified. 562112—Hazardous Waste Collection Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis and previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified; 562211—Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562212—Solid Waste Landfill Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562213—Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562219—Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562920—Materials Recovery Facilities Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
    4. Amend §  372.38 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    §  372.38 Exemptions.

    (h) Metal mining overburden. If a toxic chemical that is a constituent of overburden is processed or otherwise used by facilities in SIC code 10, or in NAICS codes 212221, 212222, 212230 or 212299, a person is not required to consider the quantity of the toxic chemical so processed, or otherwise used when determining whether an applicable threshold has been met under § 372.25, § 372.27, or § 372.28, or determining the amounts to be reported under § 372.30.

    [FR Doc. 2017-27815 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 425 [CMS-1702—IFC] RIN 0938-AT51 Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program: Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017 AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This interim final rule with comment period establishes policies for assessing the financial and quality performance of Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances during performance year 2017, including the applicable quality reporting period for the performance year. Under the Shared Savings Program, providers of services and suppliers that participate in ACOs continue to receive traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) payments under Parts A and B, but the ACO may be eligible to receive a shared savings payment if it meets specified quality and savings requirements. ACOs in performance-based risk agreements may also share in losses. This interim final rule with comment period establishes extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies for the Shared Savings Program that will apply to ACOs subject to extreme and uncontrollable events, such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California wildfires, effective for performance year 2017, including the applicable quality data reporting period for the performance year.

    DATES:

    Effective date: These regulations are effective on January 20, 2018.

    Comment date: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on February 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1702-IFC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “submitting a comment.”

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1702-IFC, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8013. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1702-IFC, Mail stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments before the close of the comment period to either of the following addresses:

    a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)

    b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members. Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period. For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sabrina Ahmed, (410) 786-7499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after they have been received: http://regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments.

    I. Background

    Stakeholders representing Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) located in the geographic areas impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria and the California wildfires have reported significant impacts on healthcare provider operations and on area infrastructure. (For more detailed information, see the interim final rule with comment period titled Medicare Program; Quality Payment Program: Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstance Policy for the Transition Year that appeared in the Federal Register on November 16, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Quality Payment Program IFC) (82 FR 53568 and 53895). For example, Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico on September 20, 2017. Stakeholders located in Puerto Rico report that while federal and local agencies have been working around the clock to restore infrastructure in Puerto Rico, local communication systems are still not fully functioning, some residents do not have water services, and many residents do not have access to electric power. Under such circumstances, healthcare providers report that their main focus is to manage chronically ill patients; provide essential services such as dialysis, chemotherapy, and blood transfusions; deal with trauma; and dispense maintenance medications, including insulin. Many healthcare providers in Puerto Rico have been unable to reopen their offices not only because they lack power and water, but also because access to fuel for operating alternate power generators has been limited.

    In addition, other stakeholders report that the loss of infrastructure has significantly affected the utilization and cost of services furnished to the Medicare beneficiaries they serve. For example, stakeholders representing ACOs in Florida indicate there has been a significant increase in emergency department services, hospitalizations, and skilled nursing facility (SNF) admissions because of Hurricane Irma. They believe that the increased numbers of medical services being furnished in their geographic areas is a direct result of hurricane-related factors affecting healthcare providers that are beyond their control. Stakeholders report that, in some cases, beneficiaries located in hurricane-affected areas who are being treated for chronic conditions, such as diabetes, have limited access to their primary clinicians and have not been able to obtain timely refills for their prescribed medications, resulting in an increased volume of hospital and SNF admissions, as well as increased volumes of other medical services. Stakeholders suggest that beneficiaries in affected areas are more likely to be admitted to hospitals and SNFs, and to require other additional medical services when basic infrastructure has been damaged, such as when beneficiaries are unable to utilize ventilators or other medically necessary equipment at home or in another less intensive setting because of widespread electrical outages. Further, ACOs located in affected areas report that ACO providers/suppliers, including hospitals and SNFs, are struggling to help beneficiaries meet their post-discharge needs, including for housing, family support, and personal care. Stakeholders report that as a result, in some cases, patients may have remained in inpatient facilities due to the lack of appropriate post-discharge services.

    Under the Shared Savings Program, ACOs that successfully meet quality and savings requirements can share a percentage of the achieved savings with Medicare. Eligible ACOs share in savings only if they meet both the quality performance standards and generate shareable savings (see §§ 425.604(a)(7), (b) and (c); 425.606(a)(7), (b) and (c); and 425.610(a)(7), (b) and (c)). ACOs participating in a two-sided risk model are required to share losses with the Medicare program when expenditures over the benchmark exceed the minimum loss rate (see §§ 425.606(b), (f) and (g); and 425.610(b), (f) and (g)). ACOs have expressed concerns that disaster-related effects on their ACO participants and assigned beneficiary population could affect their ability to successfully meet the quality performance standards, and in the case of ACOs under performance-based risk, to avoid shared losses. Stakeholders are concerned about the impact on ACO performance results when comparing performance year expenditures that reflect disaster-related spikes in utilization and costs of medical services against historical benchmarks that do not include the costs of a disaster. For instance, in light of the challenges being faced by healthcare providers in Puerto Rico, stakeholders estimate that it might take ACO participants in Puerto Rico from 3 to 6 months, at a minimum, to comply with quality measures reporting requirements for performance year 2017. Stakeholders are also concerned that ACOs and ACO participants affected by disasters could be unfairly assessed for performance year 2017 based on the quality and claims data that would be available during financial reconciliation for performance year 2017. For example, stakeholders have expressed the following concerns:

    • There could be very limited ability to obtain beneficiary survey responses to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey through phone calls and mailings. Further, the widespread devastation of infrastructure and the impact on healthcare providers would likely adversely impact beneficiary access to care and beneficiary ratings of services, which could negatively affect results on the CAHPS survey measures.

    • ACO quality performance scores could be adversely affected by a limited ability to furnish and/or submit claims for cancer screening services, diabetic eye exams, or other preventive services. This would impact ACOs' quality performance scores because higher rates are better for many of the quality measures, such as ACO-19 Colorectal Cancer Screening or ACO-20 Breast Cancer Screening.

    • There could be a high number of unplanned hospital and SNF admissions, and high use of emergency room services due to multiple disaster-related factors, such as beneficiary exposure to contagious illnesses and limited access to medicines for beneficiaries with chronic conditions. This could significantly impact ACOs' quality performance scores because lower rates of admissions are better for measures, such as ACO-35 SNF 30-day All-Cause Readmission Measure or ACO-36 All-Cause Unplanned Admissions for Patients with Diabetes.

    • The impact of the disasters on an ACO's financial performance could be unpredictable as a result of the increase in utilization and cost of services furnished to the Medicare beneficiaries it serves. In some cases, ACO participants might be unable to coordinate care because of migration of patient populations leaving the impacted areas. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that existing Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs may be unable to remain in a two-sided risk track if they are held fully accountable for repaying shared losses associated with these disasters. We also note that our experience with the Shared Savings Program has been that the majority of ACOs that owe shared losses subsequently terminate their agreements.

    These stakeholders further suggest that in the future providers and suppliers could be reluctant to participate in the Shared Savings Program under a two-sided risk model because of concerns that ACOs participating under a two-sided risk model could be required to share losses with the Medicare program for expenditures resulting from extreme and uncontrollable circumstances.

    Disasters may have several possible effects on our ability to measure ACO quality performance. For instance, displacement of beneficiaries may make it difficult for ACOs to access medical record data required for quality reporting, as well as reduce the beneficiary response rate on survey measures. Further, for practices damaged by a disaster, the medical records needed for quality reporting may be inaccessible.

    We also believe that disasters may affect the infrastructure of ACO participants, ACO providers/suppliers, and potentially the ACO legal entity itself, thereby disrupting routine operations related to their participation in the Shared Savings Program and achievement of program goals. The effects of a disaster could include challenges in communication between the ACO and its participating providers and suppliers and in implementation of and participation in programmatic activities. These factors could jeopardize an ACO's ability to remain in the program, particularly for ACOs that have accepted performance-based risk under Tracks 2 and 3. Stakeholders have requested that we develop policies under the Shared Savings Program to recognize the impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on ACO quality and financial performance.

    II. Provisions of the Interim Final Rule A. Shared Savings Program Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017

    We agree with stakeholders that the financial and quality performance of ACOs located in areas subject to extreme and uncontrollable circumstances could be significantly and adversely affected. We also agree that due to the widespread disruptions that have occurred during 2017 in areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California wildfires, new policies are warranted for assessing quality and financial performance of Shared Savings Program ACOs in the affected areas. We believe it is appropriate to adopt policies to address stakeholder concerns that displacement of beneficiaries may make it difficult for ACOs to access medical record data required for quality reporting, and might reduce the beneficiary response rate on survey measures. In addition, medical records needed for quality reporting may be inaccessible. We also believe it is appropriate to adopt policies to address stakeholders' concerns that ACOs might be held responsible for sharing losses with the Medicare program resulting from catastrophic events outside the ACO's control given the increase in utilization, migration of patient populations leaving the impacted areas, and the mandatory use of natural disaster payment modifiers making it difficult to identify whether a claim would otherwise have been denied under normal Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) rules.

    Under the Shared Savings Program, we do not currently have policies for addressing ACO quality performance scoring and the determination of the shared losses owed by ACOs participating under performance-based risk tracks in the event of an extreme or uncontrollable circumstance. In the Quality Payment Program IFC (82 FR 53895), we established an automatic policy to address extreme and uncontrollable circumstances, including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, for the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) for the 2017 performance year. (The specific regions identified as being affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria for the 2017 MIPS performance year are provided in detail in section III.B.1.e. of the Quality Payment Program IFC (82 FR 53898)). In the Quality Payment Program IFC, we stated that should additional extreme and uncontrollable circumstances arise for the 2017 MIPS performance period that trigger the automatic extreme and uncontrollable circumstance policy under the Quality Payment Program, we would communicate that information through routine communication channels, including but not limited to issuing program memoranda, emails to stakeholders, and notices on the Quality Payment Program website, qpp.cms.gov (82 FR 53897). For example, we recently issued guidance to stakeholders indicating that the MIPS Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstance Policy also applies to MIPS eligible clinicians affected by the California wildfires (see https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Payment-Program/Resource-Library/Interim-Final-Rule-with-Comment-fact-sheet.pdf).

    We believe it is also appropriate to establish automatic extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies under the Shared Savings Program for performance year 2017 due to the urgency of providing relief to Shared Savings Program ACOs impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California wildfires, because their quality scores could be adversely affected by these disasters and some ACOs could be at risk for additional shared losses due to the costs associated with these extreme and uncontrollable events. Therefore, given the broad impact of the three hurricanes and the wildfires, and to address any additional extreme and uncontrollable circumstances that may arise during 2017 or the quality data reporting period for the performance year, we are establishing the policies described below for the Shared Savings Program for performance year 2017.

    For program clarity and to reduce unnecessary burdens on affected ACOs, we are aligning the automatic extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies under the Shared Savings Program with the policy established under the Quality Payment Program. Specifically, the Shared Savings Program extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies will apply when we determine that an event qualifies as an automatic triggering event under the Quality Payment Program. We will use the determination of an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance under the Quality Payment Program, including the identification of affected geographic areas and applicable time periods, for purposes of determining the applicability of the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies with respect to both financial performance and quality reporting under the Shared Savings Program. These policies will also apply with respect to the determination of the ACO's quality performance in the event that an extreme and uncontrollable event occurs during the applicable quality data reporting period for performance year 2017 and the reporting period is not extended. We believe it is appropriate to extend these policies to encompass the quality reporting period, unless the reporting period is extended, because we would not have the quality data necessary to measure an ACO's quality performance for 2017 if the ACO were unable to submit its quality data as a result of a disaster occurring during the submission window. For example, if an extreme and uncontrollable event were to occur in February 2018, which is during the quality data reporting period for performance year 2017 that is currently scheduled to end on March 16, 2018 at 8 p.m. eastern daylight time, then the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies would apply for quality data reporting for performance year 2017, if the reporting period is not extended. We do not believe it is appropriate to extend this policy to encompass the quality data reporting period if the reporting period is extended because affected ACOs would have an additional opportunity to submit their quality data, enabling us to measure their quality performance in 2017. However, we note that, because a disaster that occurs after the end of the performance year would have no impact on the determination of an ACO's financial performance for performance year 2017, we will make no adjustment to shared losses in the event an extreme or uncontrollable event occurs during the quality data reporting period.

    1. Determination of Quality Performance Scores for ACOs in Affected Areas

    ACOs and their ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers are frequently located across several different geographic regions or localities, serving a mix of beneficiaries who may be differentially impacted by hurricanes, wildfires, or other triggering events. Therefore, we need to establish a policy for determining when an ACO, which may have ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers located in multiple geographic areas, should qualify for the automatic extreme and uncontrollable circumstance policies for the determination of quality performance. We will determine whether an ACO has been affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance by determining whether 20 percent or more of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries resided in counties designated as an emergency declared area in performance year 2017, as determined under the Quality Payment Program as discussed in section III.B.1.e. of the Quality Payment Program IFC (82 FR 53898) or the ACO's legal entity is located in such an area. An ACO's legal entity location is based on the address on file for the ACO in CMS' ACO application and management system. We are using 20 percent of the ACO's assigned beneficiary population as the minimum threshold to establish an ACO's eligibility for the policies regarding quality reporting and quality performance scoring included in this interim final rule with comment period because we believe the 20 percent threshold provides a reasonable way to identify ACOs whose quality performance may have been adversely affected by an extreme or uncontrollable circumstance, while excluding ACOs whose performance would not likely be significantly affected. The 20 percent threshold was selected to account for the effect of an extreme or uncontrollable circumstance on an ACO that has the minimum number of assigned beneficiaries to be eligible for the program (5,000 beneficiaries), and in consideration of the average total number of unique beneficiaries for whom quality information is required to be reported in the combined CAHPS survey sample (860 beneficiaries) and the CMS web interface sample (approximately 3,500 beneficiaries). (There may be some overlap between the CAHPS sample and the CMS web interface sample.) Therefore, we estimated that an ACO with an assigned population of 5,000 beneficiaries typically would be required to report quality information on a total of 4,000 beneficiaries. Thus, we believe the 20 percent threshold ensures that an ACO with the minimum number of assigned beneficiaries would have an adequate number of beneficiaries across the CAHPS and CMS web interface samples in order to fully report on these measures. Of the ACOs we have estimated will be impacted by the disasters in 2017, 92 percent have more than 20 percent of their assigned beneficiaries residing in emergency declared areas. However, we also understand that some ACOs that have fewer than 20 percent of their assigned beneficiaries residing in affected areas have a legal entity that is located in an emergency declared area. Consequently, their ability to quality report may be equally impacted since the ACO legal entity may be unable to collect the information from the ACO participants or experience infrastructure issues related to capturing, organizing and reporting the data to CMS. If less than 20 percent of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries reside in an affected area and the ACO's legal entity is not located in a county designated as an affected area, then we believe that there is unlikely to be a significant impact upon the ACO's ability to report or on the representativeness of the quality performance score that is determined for the ACO.

    We will determine what percentage of the ACO's performance year assigned population was affected by a disaster based on the final list of beneficiaries assigned to the ACO for the performance year. Although beneficiaries are assigned to ACOs under Track 1 and Track 2 based on preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation after the end of the performance year, these ACOs will be able to use their quarterly assignment lists, which include beneficiaries' counties of residence, for early insight into whether they are likely to meet the 20 percent threshold. We have used preliminary information on beneficiary assignment for the 2017 performance year to estimate the number of ACOs that were affected by the hurricanes and the California wildfires in 2017. We estimate that 105 of the 480 ACOs (approximately 22 percent) would meet the minimum threshold of having 20 percent or more of their assigned beneficiaries residing in an area designated as impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California wildfires or have their legal entity located in one of these areas.

    For purposes of determining quality performance scoring for performance year 2017, if 20 percent or more of an ACO's assigned beneficiaries reside in an area impacted by the disaster or the ACO's legal entity is located in such an area, the ACO's minimum quality score will be set to equal the mean Shared Savings Program ACO quality score for all ACOs for performance year 2017. We are setting the minimum quality score equal to the mean quality score for all Shared Savings Program ACOs nationwide, because the mean reflects the full range of quality performance across all ACOs in the Shared Savings Program. More specifically, the mean ACO quality score is equal to the combined ACO quality score for all ACOs meeting the quality performance standard for the performance year divided by the total number of ACOs meeting the quality performance standard for the performance year. To illustrate, we note that the mean Shared Savings Program ACO quality performance score for all participating ACOs for performance year 2016 was approximately 95 percent. In the event an affected ACO is able to complete quality reporting for performance year 2017, and the ACO's calculated quality score is higher than the mean Shared Savings Program ACO quality score, then we would apply the higher score.

    In earlier rulemaking, we finalized a policy under which ACOs that demonstrate quality improvement on established quality measures from year-to-year will be eligible for up to 4 bonus points per domain (79 FR 67927 through 67931, § 425.502(e)(4)). To earn bonus points, an ACO must demonstrate a net improvement in performance on measures within a domain. If an ACO is not able to complete quality reporting for performance year 2017, it will not be possible for us to assess the ACO's improvement on established quality measures since performance year 2016. Therefore, if an ACO receives a quality score based on the mean quality score, the ACO is not eligible for bonus points awarded based on quality improvement.

    We believe it is appropriate to adjust the quality performance scores for ACOs in affected areas because we anticipate that such ACOs will likely be unable to collect or report the necessary information to CMS as a result of the extreme and uncontrollable circumstance, and/or the ACO's quality performance score will be significantly and adversely affected. Section 1899(b)(3)(C) of the Act gives us the authority to establish the quality performance standards used to assess the quality of care furnished by ACO. Accordingly, we are modifying the quality performance standard specified under § 425.502 by amending paragraph (e)(4) and adding a new paragraph (f) to address potential adjustments to the quality performance score for performance year 2017 of ACOs determined to be affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. For performance year 2017, including the applicable quality data reporting period for the performance year if the reporting period is not extended, in the event that we determine that 20 percent or more of an ACO's final list of assigned beneficiaries for the performance year, as determined under subpart E of the Shared Savings Program regulations, reside in an area that is affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance as determined under the Quality Payment Program, or that the ACO's legal entity is located in such an area, we will use the following approach to calculate the ACO's quality performance score instead of the methodology specified in § 425.502(a) through (e).

    • The ACO's minimum quality score will be set to equal the mean Shared Savings Program ACO quality score for performance year 2017.

    • If the ACO is able to completely and accurately report all quality measures, we will use the higher of the ACO's quality score or the mean Shared Savings Program ACO quality score.

    • If the ACO receives a quality score based on the mean, the ACO is not eligible for bonus points awarded based on quality improvement.

    We will apply determinations made under the Quality Payment Program with respect to whether an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance has occurred and the affected areas. We have sole discretion to determine the time period during which an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance occurred, the percentage of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries residing in the affected areas, and the location of the ACO legal entity.

    For purposes of the MIPS APM scoring standard, MIPS eligible clinicians in Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs that do not completely report quality for 2017; and therefore, receive the mean ACO quality score under the Shared Savings Program would receive a score of zero percent in the MIPS quality performance category. However, these MIPS eligible clinicians would receive a score of 100 percent in the improvement activities (IAs) performance category, which would be sufficient for them to receive a 2017 MIPS final score above the performance threshold. This would result in at least a slight positive MIPS payment adjustment in 2019. Additionally, if the ACO participants are able to report advancing care information (ACI), the MIPS eligible clinicians in the ACO will receive an ACI performance category score under the APM scoring standard which would further increase their final score under MIPS.

    2. Mitigating Shared Losses for ACOs Participating in a Performance-Based Risk Track

    In addition, we are modifying the payment methodology under Tracks 2 and 3 established under the authority of section 1899(i) of the Act to mitigate shared losses owed by ACOs affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances during performance year 2017. Under this policy, we will reduce the ACO's shared losses, if any, determined to be owed under the existing methodology for calculating shared losses in part 425, subpart G, of the regulations by an amount determined by multiplying the shared losses by two factors: (1) The percentage of the total months in the performance year affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance; and (2) the percentage of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries who reside in an area affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance. We will determine the percentage of the ACO's performance year assigned beneficiary population that was affected by the disaster based on the final list of beneficiaries assigned to the ACO for the performance year. For example, assume that an ACO is determined to owe shared losses of $100,000 for performance year 2017, a disaster was declared for October through December during the performance year, and 25 percent of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries reside in the disaster area. In this scenario, we would adjust the ACO's losses in the following manner:

    $100,000−($100,000 × 0.25 × 0.25) = $100,000−$6,250 = $93,750.

    We believe it is appropriate to adopt this policy to address stakeholders' concerns that ACOs could be held responsible for sharing losses with the Medicare program resulting from catastrophic events outside the ACO's control given the increase in utilization, difficulty of coordinating care for patient populations leaving the impacted areas, and the mandatory use of natural disaster payment modifiers making it difficult to identify whether a claim would otherwise have been denied under normal Medicare FFS rules. Absent this relief, we believe ACOs that are currently participating in Tracks 2 and 3 may reconsider whether they are able to continue their participation in the Shared Savings Program under a performance-based risk track. The approach we are adopting in this interim final rule with comment period balances the need to offer relief to affected ACOs with the need to continue to hold those ACOs accountable for losses incurred during the months in which there was no applicable disaster declaration and for the assigned beneficiary population that was outside the area affected by the disaster. We also note that these policies do not change the status of Track 2 or Track 3 of the Shared Savings Program as an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM) for purposes of the Quality Payment Program, or prevent an eligible clinician in a performance-based risk ACO from becoming a Qualifying APM Participant for purposes of the APM incentive under the Quality Payment Program.

    We also explored an alternative approach for mitigating the potential losses for ACOs in performance-based risk tracks that are affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. Under this approach, we would remove claims for services furnished to assigned beneficiaries in the impacted areas by an ACO participant that are submitted with a natural disaster modifier before calculating financial performance. However, we believe that this alternative approach could, for some affected ACOs, result in the exclusion of a significant amount of their total claims at financial reconciliation, making it very difficult to measure the ACOs' financial performance.

    We also want to emphasize that all ACOs will continue to be entitled to share in any savings they may achieve for performance year 2017. The calculation of savings and the determination of shared savings payment amounts will not be affected by the policies to address extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. ACOs in all three tracks of the program will receive shared savings payments, if any, as determined under part 425, subpart G.

    We also considered the possible impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on an ACO's expenditures for purposes of determining the benchmark (§§ 425.602 and 425.603). The additional costs incurred as a result of an extreme or uncontrollable circumstance would likely impact the benchmark determined for the ACO's subsequent agreement period in the Shared Savings Program, as performance years of the current agreement period become the historical benchmark years for the subsequent agreement period. We currently believe that the increase in expenditures for a particular calendar year would result in a higher benchmark value when the same calendar year is used to determine the ACO's historical benchmark, and in calculating adjustments to the rebased benchmark based on regional FFS expenditures (§ 425.603). We believe that any effect of including these additional expenditures in determining the ACO's benchmark for the subsequent agreement period could be mitigated somewhat because the ACO's expenditures during the three base years included in the benchmark are weighted equally, and regional expenditures would also increase as a result of the disaster. Therefore, we anticipate the effect on the regional adjustment under § 425.603(c)(9) would be minimal. Although we are not modifying the program's historical benchmark methodology in this interim final rule with comment period, we plan to observe the impact of the 2017 hurricanes and wildfires on ACO expenditures, and may revisit the need to make adjustments to the methodology for calculating the benchmark in future rulemaking.

    To exercise our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act to use other payment models, we must demonstrate that the payment model— (1) “ . . . does not result in spending more for such ACO for such beneficiaries than would otherwise be expended . . . if the model were not implemented. . . .” and (2) “will improve the quality and efficiency of items and services furnished under” Medicare. In assessing the impacts of the policy for mitigating shared losses for Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances in 2017, we considered: The impact of the potential loss of participation in the program by ACOs affected by disasters should we not implement the policy described in this interim final rule with comment period, and the anticipated minimal impact of adjusting losses for ACOs affected by disasters, as described in the regulatory impact statement. On the basis of this assessment, we believe incorporating this extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policy into the payment methodologies for Tracks 2 and 3 would meet the requirements of section 1899(i) of the Act by not increasing expenditures above the costs that would be incurred under the statutory payment methodology under section 1899(d) of the Act and by encouraging affected ACOs to remain in the program, which we believe will increase the quality and efficiency of the items and services furnished to the beneficiaries they serve. We also note that to the extent the policies in this interim final rule with comment constitute a change to the Shared Savings Program payment methodology for 2017 after the start of the performance year, we believe that, consistent with section 1871(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, and for reasons discussed in section III of this interim final rule with comment period, it would be contrary to the public interest not to adjust the shared losses calculated for ACOs in Tracks 2 and 3 to reflect the impact of the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances during 2017.

    We invite comments on the policies being finalized in this interim final rule with comment period for performance year 2017, including the applicable quality data reporting period for performance year 2017 under the Shared Savings Program. We believe these automatic extreme and uncontrollable circumstance policies will reduce burden and financial uncertainty for ACOs, ACO participants, and ACO providers/suppliers affected by catastrophes, including ACOs affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California wildfires, and will also align with existing Medicare policies under the Quality Payment Program for 2017.

    We note that in future rulemaking, we intend to propose permanent policies under the Shared Savings Program to address extreme and uncontrollable circumstances in future performance years. Therefore, we also invite public comment on policies and issues that we should consider when developing proposals for these permanent policies.

    We also welcome comments on how to address the impact of extreme and uncontrollable events on historical benchmark calculations, which we will consider in developing any future proposals. In particular, we seek comments as to whether and how the historical benchmark should be adjusted to reflect extreme and uncontrollable events that occur during a benchmark year, how to establish the threshold for determining whether a significant change in expenditures occurred, whether and how to account for changes in expenditures that have an aggregate positive or negative impact on the historical benchmark, and whether and how to reweight the benchmark years when calculating the historical benchmark if one or more benchmark years is impacted by an extreme and uncontrollable event.

    III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. Similarly, section 1871(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide for notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period of not less than 60 days for public comment. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA provides for exceptions from the notice and comment requirements; in cases in which these exceptions apply, section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act provides for exceptions from the notice and 60-day comment period requirements of the Act as well. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorize an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

    We find that there is good cause to waive the notice and comment requirements under sections 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act due to the impact of the recent disasters, as described in section I of this interim final rule with comment period, and the need to provide relief to impacted Shared Savings Program ACOs, ACO participants, and ACO providers/suppliers. Based on the size and scale of the destruction and displacement caused by these disasters in the affected regions, we believe it is likely that some ACOs and their ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers have been significantly adversely affected by these events. It is possible that some ACO providers/suppliers may lack access to their EHR technology or other clinical data they would need in order to submit quality data for the 2017 performance period. Undertaking notice-and-comment rule-making would not provide certainty for ACOs that must prepare now for quality reporting for performance year 2017, which begins on January 22, 2018. Moreover, there is no certainty that a final rule could be issued and in effect before the end of the quality reporting period for performance year 2017 on March 16, 2018. Absent this certainty, the prudent action for impacted ACOs would be to direct their attention and resources to attempt to report quality data for performance year 2017.

    We believe it is likely that despite this effort, many affected ACOs would be unable to completely, accurately, and timely report given the lack of clinical information and infrastructure as a result of the disasters. This would result in unnecessary burden to impacted ACOs and their ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers in the event a final rule is issued during or after the quality data submission period, and the ACO would have been afforded relief under the policies included in the final rule. Further, absent this certainty, ACOs participating under Tracks 2 and 3 that are located in disaster areas and that have experienced increased utilization would be concerned about being at risk for shared losses and would likely direct their attention and resources to contingency planning activities to develop options for offsetting the potential additional costs. These ACOs may also reconsider whether they are able to continue to their participation in the Shared Savings Program in a performance-based risk track. We believe it is also possible that potential ACO applicants could be reluctant to initiate the necessary advance planning and investments required to develop the capability to participate under a two-sided risk model during future performance years if they believe that we would be hesitant to provide similar flexibility in the event of future disasters, such that they may be at risk for losses resulting from circumstances beyond their control. Consequently, we believe it is in the public interest to adopt these interim final policies to provide relief to affected ACOs and their ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers by mitigating the negative effects of the disasters during performance year 2017 on their quality and financial performance under the Shared Savings Program and allowing them to direct their resources toward caring for their patients and repairing structural damage to facilities.

    We find that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to undergo notice and comment procedures before finalizing, on an interim basis with an opportunity for public comment, policies under the Shared Savings Program to address extreme and uncontrollable circumstances that impact an entire region or locale in performance year 2017, including the applicable quality data reporting period. Therefore, we find good cause to waive the notice of proposed rulemaking as provided under section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act and to issue this interim final rule with an opportunity for public comment. We are providing a 60-day public comment period as specified in the DATES section of this document.

    IV. Collection of Information Requirements

    As stated in section 3022 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, shall not apply to the Shared Savings Program. However, we note that this document does not impose any new information collection requirements (that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements).

    V. Regulatory Impact Statement

    These policies for addressing extreme and uncontrollable circumstances are unlikely to have a significant economic impact on the Shared Savings Program. We estimated the impact of these policies by simulating their effect on actual 2016 financial and quality performance results, the most recent available reconciled financial and quality results, for the ACOs currently participating in the program that are potentially impacted by these policies. The total increase in shared savings payments and total reduction in shared loss payments anticipated for ACOs impacted by the policies in this rule in 2017 is estimated to be approximately $3.5 million in total (which would round to zero assuming precision to the nearest $10 million). This interim final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is expected to result in no more than de minimis costs.

    VI. Response to Public Comments

    Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all public comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this document, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the public comments in the preamble to that document.

    List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 425

    Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Health professions, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR part 425 as set forth below:

    PART 425—MEDICARE SHARED SAVINGS PROGRAM 1. The authority for part 425 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 1102, 1106, 1871, and 1899 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1306, 1395hh, and 1395jjj).

    2. Amend § 425.502 by adding paragraphs (e)(4)(vi) and (f) to read as follows:
    § 425.502 Calculating the ACO quality performance score.

    (e) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (vi) For performance year 2017, if an ACO receives the mean Shared Savings Program ACO quality score based on the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies in paragraph (f) of this section, the ACO is not eligible for bonus points awarded based on quality improvement.

    (f) Extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. For performance year 2017, including the applicable quality data reporting period for the performance year if the quality reporting period is not extended, in the event that CMS determines 20 percent or more of an ACO's assigned beneficiaries for the performance year, as determined under subpart E of this part, reside in an area identified under the Quality Payment Program as being affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance or an ACO's legal entity is located in such an area, the following approach is used in calculating the quality score instead of the methodology specified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.

    (1) The ACO's minimum quality performance score is set to equal the mean quality performance score for all Shared Savings Program ACOs for performance year 2017.

    (2) If the ACO completely and accurately reports all quality measures, CMS uses the higher of the ACO's quality performance score or the mean quality performance score for all Shared Savings Program ACOs.

    (3) CMS applies determinations made under the Quality Payment Program with respect to—

    (i) Whether an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance has occurred; and

    (ii) The affected areas.

    (4) An ACO's legal entity location is based on the address on file for the ACO in CMS' ACO application and management system.

    (5) CMS has sole discretion to determine the time period during which an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance occurred, the percentage of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries residing in the affected areas, and the location of the ACO legal entity.

    3. Amend § 425.606 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 425.606 Calculation of shared savings and losses under Track 2.

    (i) Extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. For performance year 2017, the following adjustment is made in calculating the amount of shared losses, after the application of the shared loss rate in paragraph (f) of this section and the loss recoupment limit in paragraph (g) of this section.

    (1) CMS determines the percentage of the ACO's performance year 2017 assigned beneficiary population affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.

    (2) CMS reduces the amount of the ACO's shared losses by an amount determined by multiplying the shared losses by the percentage of the total months in the performance year affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance, and the percentage of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries who reside in an area affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.

    (3) CMS applies determinations made under the Quality Payment Program with respect to—

    (i) Whether an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance has occurred; and

    (ii) The affected areas.

    (4) CMS has sole discretion to determine the time period during which an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance occurred and the percentage of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries residing in the affected areas.

    4. Amend § 425.610 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 425.610 Calculation of shared savings and losses under Track 3.

    (i) Extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. For performance year 2017, the following adjustment is made in calculating the amount of shared losses, after the application of the shared loss rate in paragraph (f) of this section and the loss recoupment limit in paragraph (g) of this section.

    (1) CMS determines the percentage of the ACO's performance year 2017 assigned beneficiary population affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.

    (2) CMS reduces the amount of the ACO's shared losses by an amount determined by multiplying the shared losses by the percentage of the total months in the performance year affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance, and the percentage of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries who reside in an area affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.

    (3) CMS applies determinations made under the Quality Payment Program with respect to—

    (i) Whether an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance has occurred; and

    (ii) The affected areas.

    (4) CMS has sole discretion to determine the time period during which an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance occurred and the percentage of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries residing in the affected areas.

    Dated: November 28, 2017. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dated: November 30, 2017. Eric D. Hargan, Acting Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27920 Filed 12-21-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    82 246 Tuesday, December 26, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 573 [Docket No. FDA-2017-F-4399] Zinpro Corp.; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use); Reopening of the Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification; petition for rulemaking; reopening of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is reopening the comment period for the notice of petition that appeared in the Federal Register of September 22, 2017, proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of chromium DL-methionine as a nutritional source of chromium in cattle feed. FDA is reopening the comment period to allow additional time for comments on environmental impacts.

    DATES:

    FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice of petition published September 22, 2017 (82 FR 44367). Submit either electronic or written comments by January 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of January 25, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-F-4399 for “Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Chromium DL-Methionine.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carissa Doody, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-228), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6283, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of September 22, 2017 (82 FR 44367), FDA gave notice that Zinpro Corp. had filed a petition to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals (21 CFR part 573) to provide for the safe use of chromium DL-methionine as a nutritional source of chromium in cattle feed.

    Interested persons were originally given until October 23, 2017, to comment on the petitioner's environmental assessment. The environmental assessment was not placed on public display until October 13, 2017. On our own initiative, we are reopening the comment period to allow potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address pertinent environmental issues. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on this important issue.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27785 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 573 [Docket No. FDA-2017-F-4375] Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use); Reopening of the Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification; petition for rulemaking; reopening of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is reopening the comment period for the notice of petition, published in the Federal Register of September 21, 2017, revising food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of glyceryl polyethylene glycol (200) ricinoleate as an emulsifier in animal food that does not include food for cats, dogs, vitamin premixes, or aquaculture. FDA is reopening the comment period to allow additional time for comments on environmental impacts.

    DATES:

    FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice of petition published September 21, 2017 (82 FR 44129). Submit either electronic or written comments by January 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of January 25, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-F-4375 for “Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; glyceryl polyethylene glycol (200) ricinoleate.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of September 21, 2017, FDA gave notice that Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB had filed a petition to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals (21 CFR part 573) to provide for the safe use of glyceryl polyethylene glycol (200) ricinoleate as an emulsifier in animal food that does not include food for cats, dogs, vitamin premixes, or aquaculture.

    Interested persons were originally given until October 23, 2017, to comment on the petitioner's environmental assessment. The environmental assessment was not placed on public display until October 13, 2017. On our own initiative, we are reopening the comment period to allow potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address pertinent environmental issues.

    Dated: December 20, 2017 Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27789 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 803 [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6730] Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Medical Devices and Combination Products; Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for Manufacturers AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA, Agency, or we) Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, is announcing a proposed program for manufacturer reporting of certain device malfunction medical device reports (MDRs) in summary form—the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program. This proposed voluntary program reflects goals for streamlining malfunction reporting outlined in the commitment letter agreed to by FDA and industry and submitted to Congress, as referenced in the Medical Device User Fee Amendments Act of 2017 (MDUFA IV Commitment Letter). These goals include permitting manufacturers of devices in certain product codes to report malfunctions on a quarterly basis and in a summary format. In addition, this proposed program reflects FDA's findings from a pilot program the Agency conducted to study summary reporting formats for malfunction MDRs.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on this notification by February 26, 2018. Submit comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by February 26, 2018. See section IV of this document, the “Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.”

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before February 26, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of February 26, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6730 for “Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for Manufacturers.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Isaac Chang, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3114, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6670, [email protected]; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7911; or CBER, Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development (OCOD), 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or by calling 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010; or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Every year, FDA receives hundreds of thousands of MDRs of suspected device-associated deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions. The Agency's MDR program is one of the post-market surveillance tools FDA uses to monitor device performance, detect potential device-related safety issues, and contribute to benefit-risk assessments. Malfunction reports represent a substantial fraction of the MDRs FDA receives on an annual basis.

    The regulations contained in part 803 (21 CFR part 803) and issued under section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360i) set forth medical device reporting requirements. Among other things, part 803 requires the submission of an individual MDR when a manufacturer becomes aware of information, from any source, which reasonably suggests that one of its marketed devices malfunctioned and the malfunction of the device or a similar device marketed by the manufacturer would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur (see §§ 803.10(c)(1) and 803.50(a)(2) (21 CFR 803.10(c)(1) and 803.50(a)(2))). Under § 803.19, FDA may grant exemptions or variances from, or alternatives to, any or all of the reporting requirements in part 803, and may change the frequency of reporting to quarterly, semiannually, annually, or other appropriate time period. FDA may grant such modifications upon request or at its discretion. (See § 803.19(c).)

    FDA has historically granted exemptions, variances, and/or alternatives under § 803.19 to allow a variety of summary reporting methods for select types of MDRs. For example, in October 2000, FDA issued guidance on the Alternative Summary Reporting (ASR) Program (Ref. 1). Through the ASR program, FDA has granted an exemption from individual reporting requirements of §§ 803.50 and 803.52 to certain manufacturers, allowing them to efficiently submit reportable events in a compact manner. As a condition of exemptions, variances, or alternatives that FDA has granted in the past, device manufacturers were required to submit certain MDR reportable events to FDA in a “line item” spreadsheet format consisting mainly of event codes (Ref. 2). Although the summary reports contained this abridged data, as part of the request for an exemption, variance, or alternative, FDA also received a narrative description of the types of events that would be summarized in these reports.

    While FDA had sufficient understanding of the summary reports using the “line item” spreadsheet format, the Agency noted that the absence of a narrative in summary reports would make it more difficult for the public to interpret the coding in the summary reports and understand the context of the MDR using the publicly accessible MDR database. For example, a report with codes indicating corrosion and electrical issues may be difficult to interpret because this could be interpreted as: (1) Corrosion leading to an electrical issue, (2) an electrical issue leading to corrosion, or (3) an indeterminate relationship between the corrosion and electrical issue. However, with the inclusion of event narratives, this information is more easily understood. As a result, FDA believes it is important to include narratives in summary reporting to facilitate public understanding of the information and promote transparency in the publicly accessible MDR database.

    The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) (Pub. L. 110-85) amended section 519(a) of the FD&C Act related to the reporting of device malfunctions. FDAAA did not alter the malfunction reporting requirements for class III devices and those class II devices that are permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining. Under section 519(a)(1)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDAAA, manufacturers of those devices must continue to submit malfunction reports in accordance with part 803 (or successor regulations), unless FDA grants an exemption or variance from, or an alternative to, a requirement under such regulations under §  803.19. However, FDAAA amended the FD&C Act to require that malfunction MDRs for class I and those class II devices that are not permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining—with the exception of any type of class I or II device that FDA has, by notice, published in the Federal Register or by letter to the person who is the manufacturer or importer of the device, indicated should be subject to part 803 in order to protect the public health—be submitted in accordance with the criteria established by FDA. The criteria must require the malfunction reports to be in summary form and made on a quarterly basis (section 519(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act).

    In the Federal Register of March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12743), FDA explained that, pending further notice from the Agency, all class I devices and those class II devices that are not permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining would remain subject to individual reporting requirements under part 803 in order to protect the public health, pursuant to section 519(a)(1)(B)(i)(III) of the FD&C Act. Consequently, unless granted an individual exemption, variance, or alternative, manufacturers of those devices have continued to be required to submit individual malfunction reports under part 803, as was required pre-FDAAA.

    To facilitate exploration of an appropriate format for collecting malfunction reports in summary form, FDA announced in the Federal Register of August 18, 2015 (80 FR 50010), a “Pilot Program for Medical Device Reporting on Malfunctions.” In that document, FDA solicited volunteers for participation in the pilot program for the submission of MDRs in summary format on a quarterly basis for malfunctions of class I devices and those class II devices that are not permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining. The announcement provided a comprehensive description of the pilot, the guiding principles, conditions, and examples of how to fill out the summary reports in different situations. The summary reporting format used in the pilot was an adaptation of the full electronic Form FDA 3500A, which included event and manufacturer narratives (Ref. 3). In the pilot summary reporting format, one line was appended to Section B5 (“event narrative”) that identified the number of events represented by the report. Reports were summarized for each model/catalog number of the device for each device problem type.

    The pilot demonstrated several important findings. First, participants were able to reduce the volume of reports by over 87 percent using the pilot format, while preserving the essential information regarding the context around malfunction events. This increased efficiency in reporting and in the Agency review and processing of malfunction reports. The format also allowed for simple, transparent, and cost-effective reporting through existing electronic reporting processes for submission of electronic MDRs (eMDRs) to FDA, in accordance with the Medical Device Reporting: Electronic Submissions Requirements Final Rule (eMDR Final Rule) published in the Federal Register of February 14, 2014 (79 FR 8832). Based upon observations from the pilot experience, this summary format was usable for both large and small firms with varying numbers of marketed devices. Lastly, summary reports collected in this format could be more easily shared publicly, facilitating transparency of malfunction reporting.

    Consistent with these findings, FDA believes that bundling “like events” together into a single summary report description would have benefits for manufacturers, FDA, and the public. For many manufacturers, this approach would greatly reduce the volume of reports that they would need to submit to FDA. For FDA, information would be received in a streamlined manner that would facilitate more efficient understanding of malfunction issues. For the public, summary reports could make malfunction event trends for a particular device more readily transparent. In the MDUFA IV Commitment Letter (Ref. 4), FDA and industry agreed to certain goals for streamlining malfunction reporting that would help achieve these benefits. These goals include permitting manufacturers of devices in certain product codes to report malfunctions on a quarterly basis and in a summary format. FDA also agreed to publish a list of device product codes for which manufacturers would be eligible to submit malfunction reports on a quarterly basis and in a summary MDR format. As explained in the MDUFA IV Commitment Letter, this list is to include product codes for class II implantable devices and class III devices, as appropriate, and reflect FDA's consideration of a list proposed by industry representatives.

    II. Principles for Malfunction Summary Reporting

    Informed by the findings from the Pilot Program for Medical Device Reporting on Malfunctions, FDA has identified several overarching principles for summary reporting of malfunctions:

    1. The collection of information in summary format should allow FDA to collect sufficient detail to understand reportable malfunction events.

    2. To increase efficiency, summary malfunction reporting should occur in a common format for the electronic reporting system used.

    3. Information about reportable malfunctions should be transparent to FDA and to the public, regardless of whether the information is reported as an individual MDR or a summary report. Information contained in a summary malfunction report that is protected from public disclosure under applicable disclosure laws would be redacted prior to release of the report.

    4. Manufacturers should communicate information regarding an imminent hazard at the earliest time possible.

    5. Summary reporting is meant to streamline the process of reporting malfunctions. It does not change regulatory requirements for MDR-related investigations or recordkeeping by manufacturers. (For example, manufacturers participating in the proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program would remain subject to requirements for establishing and maintaining MDR event files under § 803.18). In addition, under the Quality System (QS) Regulation, manufacturers must evaluate, review, and investigate any complaint that represents an MDR reportable event (see § 820.198 (21 CFR 820.198)).

    6. Summary reporting information should not be duplicative of information received through other MDR reporting processes.

    III. Proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program

    Based on the findings from the 2015 Pilot Program, the Agency's experience with summary reporting programs, and its experience with MDR reporting generally, FDA has determined it is appropriate to expand the opportunity to participate in summary malfunction reporting, consistent with the principles identified above. The Agency believes that for many types of reportable malfunctions, submission of summary reports on a quarterly basis would allow FDA to collect sufficient detail to monitor devices effectively. Currently, however, there are still situations in which submission of individual malfunction reports on a more prompt basis than quarterly is necessary to protect the public health—for example, when remedial action is needed to prevent an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health. Those situations may involve class I devices and class II devices that are not implantable, life supporting, or life-sustaining, and it is not feasible for FDA to provide notice in the Federal Register or by letter to individual manufacturers, pursuant to section 519(a)(1)(B)(i)(III) of the FD&C Act, each time one of these situations arises. For example, FDA may not become aware of the situation until it receives an MDR from a manufacturer. Thus, the Agency has determined that, at this time, all devices should remain subject to the reporting requirements at part 803, to protect the public health.

    To expand the opportunity to participate in summary malfunction reporting, FDA is proposing that under § 803.19, manufacturers of devices within eligible product codes would be granted an alternative to the reporting requirements at §§ 803.10(c)(1), 803.20(b)(3)(ii), 803.50(a)(2), and 803.52 with respect to reportable malfunction events associated with those devices. FDA is also considering how this proposed alternative may apply to combination products, and seeks comment on this issue (see 21 CFR 3.2(e) for definition of combination products and 21 CFR part 4, subpart B, for postmarketing safety reporting requirements for combination products). This proposed alternative would permit manufacturers to submit malfunction reports for devices within eligible product codes in summary format on a quarterly basis, subject to certain conditions. The proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program would not apply to importers or device user facilities. Therefore, requirements under part 803 for importers and device user facilities would be unaffected. For example, importers will continue to submit individual MDRs to the manufacturer under § 803.40.

    The remainder of this section describes the following aspects of the proposed program: (1) The conditions of participation in the program, (2) the format for summary malfunction reports, (3) the schedule and other logistics for submission of summary reports, (4) FDA's proposed implementation strategy for the program, and (5) adding to the list of product codes eligible for the program.

    A. Program Conditions

    The proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program would not apply to reportable death or serious injury events, which are still required to be reported to FDA within the mandatory 30-calendar day timeframe, under §§  803.50 and 803.52, or within the 5-work day timeframe under §  803.53. Thus, if a manufacturer participating in the proposed program became aware of information reasonably suggesting that a device that it markets has malfunctioned, and that the malfunction may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, then the manufacturer would need to submit an individual MDR for that event because it involves a reportable death or serious injury.

    Manufacturers of devices in eligible product codes could continue submitting individual, 30-day malfunction reports in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52 if they choose to do so. However, under the proposed program, those manufacturers would be permitted to submit all reportable malfunction events for devices in eligible product codes in the summary format and according to the schedule described below in section III.B and C of the document, unless one of the following individual reporting conditions applies:

    1. A Reportable Malfunction Is Associated With a 5-Day Report

    The reporting requirements at § 803.53 would continue to apply to manufacturers participating in the proposed program. Under § 803.53(a), a 5-day report must be filed if a manufacturer becomes aware of an MDR reportable event that necessitates remedial action to prevent an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health. Manufacturers participating in the proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program must continue to submit reportable malfunction events that meet this standard as 5-day reports. In addition, after you submit a 5-day report, all subsequent reportable malfunctions of the same nature that involve substantially similar devices must be submitted as individual MDRs in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52 until 90 days past the date that the remedial action has been resolved to FDA's satisfaction. Summary reporting of malfunctions may then resume on the regularly scheduled summary reporting cycle.

    If FDA has made a written request for the submission of a 5-day report, you must submit, without further requests, a 5-day report for all subsequent reportable malfunctions of the same nature that involve substantially similar devices for the time period specified in the written request. FDA may extend the time period stated in the original written request if the Agency determines it is in the interest of the public health (see § 803.53(b)).

    Submission of reportable malfunctions associated with 5-day reports in this manner would allow FDA to monitor the time course and resolution of the issue presenting an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health (see section II, summary reporting principle 4).

    2. A Reportable Malfunction Is the Subject of an Ongoing Device Recall

    When a device is the subject of a recall involving the correction or removal of a marketed product to address a malfunction, all reportable malfunction events of the same nature that involve the same device or a similar device marketed by the manufacturer must be submitted as individual MDRs to FDA until 90 days past the date the recall is terminated. Summary reporting may then resume on the regularly scheduled summary reporting cycle. This would allow FDA to monitor the frequency of reportable malfunctions associated with the recall and effectiveness of the recall strategy.

    3. FDA Has Determined That Individual MDR Reporting Is Necessary To Address a Public Health Issue

    If FDA has determined that individual malfunction reports are necessary to provide additional information and more rapid reporting for an identified public health issue involving certain devices, manufacturers must submit reportable malfunction events for those devices as individual MDRs in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52. Under these circumstances, FDA would provide written notice via letter to manufacturers of relevant devices that individual MDR submissions are necessary. FDA would provide further written notice when manufacturers of those devices may resume participation in summary malfunction reporting. If necessary to protect the public health, FDA may also revoke or modify in writing an exemption, variance, or alternative reporting requirement, pursuant to § 803.19(d).

    4. FDA Has Determined That a Device Manufacturer May Not Report in Summary Reporting Format

    FDA may determine that a specific manufacturer is no longer allowed to participate in the proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for reasons including, but not limited to, failure to comply with applicable MDR requirements under part 803, failure to follow the conditions of the program, or the need to monitor a public health issue. In that case, FDA would provide written notification to the device manufacturer to submit individual malfunction reports in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52.

    5. A New Type of Reportable Malfunction Occurs for a Device

    If a manufacturer becomes aware of information reasonably suggesting a reportable malfunction event has occurred for a device that the manufacturer markets and the reportable malfunction is a new type of malfunction that the manufacturer has not previously reported to FDA for that device, then the manufacturer must submit an individual report for that reportable malfunction in compliance with §§ 803.50 and 803.52.

    B. Malfunction Reporting Summary Format

    Manufacturers of devices in eligible product codes who participate in this proposed voluntary program would submit summary malfunction reports in the format described below.

    1. Format Rationale

    The proposed format for summary reporting largely adopts the format that was tested in the Pilot Program for Medical Device Reporting on Malfunctions.

    FDA considered several approaches to summarizing information, given the summary reporting principles identified in section II. Since contextual information is needed to sufficiently understand reported malfunctions, FDA considered formats in which narrative text fields would provide sufficient context (see section II, summary reporting principle 1). In addition, summary text narratives without patient-specific information can often be shared publicly with fewer redactions, which may provide greater transparency of device-related malfunction information (see section II, summary reporting principle 3).

    The QS regulation requires manufacturers to review, evaluate, and investigate any complaint that represents an event which must be reported to FDA under part 803, including reportable malfunction events (see § 820.198). In situations where several malfunction complaints are similar, FDA has found that many manufacturers aggregate information at the device model and device problem level in their investigation process. While this does not reduce the investigation requirements for manufacturers under part 803 or part 820 (see section II, summary reporting principle 5), aggregating malfunction reports by product and device problem would significantly reduce the number of reports. Likewise, FDA generally evaluates malfunction information at the product and device problem level, which streamlines the processing of malfunction reports and accelerates FDA's understanding of device issues. Therefore, FDA has determined that it would be mutually beneficial to organize summary malfunction reporting information according to product and device problem.

    A malfunction report may describe more than one device problem, and FDA believes that summary reporting information should not be duplicative (see section II, summary reporting principle 6). Therefore, FDA has developed a methodology to help ensure that summary malfunction reports are non-overlapping. Consider a hypothetical situation in which a manufacturer reports 100 malfunction events for a device, where 70 of those 100 reports represent device problem A, and 50 of those 100 reports represent device problem B. Reporting device problems A and B separately would create confusion regarding the total number of events received. Thus, in this example, device problem A, device problem B, and the subsequent overlap A+B, would be reported as three separate MDRs: A report describing 50 occurrences of device problem A, a report describing 30 occurrences of device problem B, and a report describing 20 occurrences involving both device problems A and B. In this way, the three separate MDRs would be mutually exclusive and unambiguous.

    In consideration of the least burdensome means of reporting, FDA has developed a format that is compatible with the Form FDA 3500A (Ref. 3), which allows manufacturers to submit MDRs using the same electronic submission form that they use to submit individual MDRs, in accordance with the eMDR Final Rule (79 FR 8832). This would streamline the process of reporting (see section II, summary reporting principle 5). Because summary malfunction reports represent a grouping of malfunction events for a specific model of a device, the proposed summary reporting format would require an additional element in the summary text narrative to identify the number of reportable malfunctions that each report represents. As described below in section III.B.2., the XML tags “<NOE>” and “<NOE/>” are placed on both sides of the number of events (NOE) to make the number extractable from the report.

    FDA believes that submission of summary reports in the format described below would provide the most compact and efficient reporting mechanism for streamlining malfunction reporting that still provides sufficient detail for FDA to monitor devices effectively.

    2. Format Instructions

    Separate summary malfunction reports would be submitted for each unique combination of device model and problem code(s). (See Appendix A for case examples of how to report (Ref. 5).) Each summary malfunction report would be required to include at least the following information collected on Form FDA 3500A and to be submitted in an electronic format:

    • SECTION B.5: Describe Event or Problem—To distinguish this report as a summary malfunction report, the first sentence of the device event narrative must read: “This report summarizes <NOE> XXX </NOE> malfunction events,” where XXX is replaced by the number of malfunction events being summarized.

    The device event narrative must then include a detailed description of the nature of the events and, if relevant and available, a range of patient age and weight and a breakdown of patient gender, race, and ethnicity.

    • SECTION D.1: Brand Name.

    • SECTION D.2 and D.2.b: Common Device Name and Product Code. Include the common name of the device and Product Classification Code (Procode).

    • SECTION D.3: Manufacturer Name, City, and State.

    • SECTION D.4: Device Identification—Enter the model and/or catalog number and lot number(s) for the devices that are the subject of the MDR. Include any device identifier (DI) portion of the unique device identifier (UDI) for the device version(s) or model(s) that are the subject of the MDR.

    • SECTION G.1: Contact Office (and Manufacturing Site for Devices)—Enter the name, address, and email of the manufacturer reporting site (contact office), including the contact name for the summary report being submitted. Enter the name and address of the manufacturing site for the device, if different from the contact office.

    • SECTION G.2: Phone Number of Contact Office.

    • SECTION G.5: Combination Products—If applicable, indicate that the report involves a combination product (see section III.B.3).

    • SECTION H.1: Type of Reportable Event—Check “Malfunction” in this box.

    • SECTION H.6: Event Problem and Evaluation Codes—

    ○ Enter the device problem code(s) (See Appendix A for case examples of how to report (Ref. 5).)

    ○ Enter the evaluation code(s) for the following categories: Method, Results, Conclusion.

    ○ Enter a Conclusion Code even if the device was not evaluated.

    • SECTION H.10: Additional Manufacturer Narrative—Provide a summary of the results of your investigation for the reported malfunctions, including any followup actions taken, and any additional information that would be helpful in understanding how you addressed the malfunction events summarized in the report. Enter a breakdown of the malfunction events summarized in the report, including the number of devices that were returned to you, the number of devices that were labeled “for single use” (if any), and the number of devices that were reprocessed and re-used (if any).

    3. Combination Product Considerations

    As noted above, FDA is considering how the alternative that would be granted under § 803.19 to permit summary malfunction reporting may apply to combination products that contain a device constituent part and seeks comment on this issue. FDA anticipates that modifications may be needed to the above format instructions for purposes of addressing combination product considerations. Additionally, if such combination products that received marketing authorization under a biological product or drug marketing application are included in the proposed alternative that would permit summary malfunction reporting, FDA anticipates that such reporting would be made through the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's or CBER's electronic reporting system with adjustments made to the above format instructions for purposes of reporting through these systems. FDA seeks comment on these issues.

    C. Submission Schedule and Logistics

    Under the proposed program, manufacturers submitting summary malfunction reports would be required to use electronic reporting (Ref. 6) to submit those reports on a quarterly basis according to the schedule in table 1.

    Table 1—Summary Malfunction Reporting Schedule Reportable malfunctions that you become aware of during these
  • timeframes:
  • Must be submitted to FDA by:
    January 1-March 31 April 30. April 1-June 30 July 31. July 1-September 30 October 31. October 1-December 31 January 31.

    The summary malfunction report would be required to include the MDR Number, which consists of the registration number of the manufacturer, the year in which the event is being reported, and a 5-digit sequence number.

    With respect to combination products that include a device constituent part and that received marketing authorization under a biological product or drug marketing application, FDA seeks comment on whether a different reporting schedule would be more appropriate.

    D. Implementation Strategy

    The goal of the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program is to permit manufacturers of devices under certain product codes to report malfunctions on a quarterly basis and summary format, as outlined in the MDUFA IV Commitment Letter (Ref. 4), in a manner that provides for effective monitoring of devices and is beneficial for FDA, industry, and the public. An important part of this proposed voluntary program is providing clarification to manufacturers regarding the product codes eligible for the program. FDA is currently in the process of evaluating device product codes to determine which ones should be eligible. The Agency is requesting comments on the product codes that should be eligible for this proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program, including for combination products. FDA will consider the proposed list of eligible product codes submitted by industry along with any comments received on this proposal in determining the product codes that would be included in the proposed alternative granted to permit summary malfunction reporting.

    Consistent with the MDUFA IV Commitment Letter (Ref. 4), when this proposed voluntary program is finalized through publication of a Federal Register document granting the alternative under § 803.19, FDA will identify on its website a list of device product codes that are eligible for the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program as part of granting the alternative. Manufacturers that choose to participate in quarterly summary reporting through the proposed program would remain responsible for complying with applicable MDR requirements under part 803 (such as requirements to establish and maintain MDR event files under § 803.18) and QS requirements under part 820 (such as the requirement to evaluate, review, and investigate any complaint that represents an MDR reportable event under § 820.198).

    If FDA determines that individual malfunction reports are necessary from a specific manufacturer or for specific devices, FDA would notify relevant manufacturers that they must submit individual reports and provide an explanation for that decision and the steps necessary to return to summary, quarterly reporting. The Agency also notes that, under § 803.19(d), it may revoke or modify in writing an exemption, variance, or alternative reporting requirement if it determines that revocation or modification is necessary to protect the public health.

    E. Addition of Product Codes to the Program

    FDA recognizes that new product codes will be created after the date that the Agency would grant the proposed alternative under § 803.19 to initiate the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program. In general, FDA does not intend to consider devices under product codes in existence for less than 2 years to be eligible for the proposed program, unless the new product code was issued solely for administrative reasons. However, FDA proposes to evaluate new product codes after they have been in existence for 2 years to determine whether they should be added to the list of product codes eligible for the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program.

    If FDA determines that a new product code is eligible, then it would grant manufacturers of devices within that product code the same proposed alternative under § 803.19 for malfunction events associated with those devices. Manufacturers could also submit a request under § 803.19(b) for a product code to be added to the list of eligible product codes and for manufacturers of devices within that product code to be granted the same proposed alternative for malfunction events associated with those devices.

    FDA believes that for many devices, the proposed quarterly summary reporting described above would be as effective as the current MDR reporting program for purposes of identifying and monitoring potential device safety concerns and device malfunctions. The proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program would allow manufacturers to submit summary reports with event narratives that would help FDA more efficiently process malfunction reports and identify malfunction trends. In addition, FDA's determination of product code eligibility and the proposed conditions of participation in the program would require submission of individual 30-day or 5-day malfunction reports in circumstances where such reports are necessary to protect public health.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed revision of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    FDA invites comments on the following topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Medical Device Reporting: Electronic Submission Requirements—21 CFR part 803 OMB Control Number 0910-0437—Revision

    The information collection associated with part 803 is approved under OMB control number 0910-0437. We request revision of the information collection approval as described in this document.

    FDA is announcing this proposed program for manufacturer reporting of certain device malfunction MDRs in summary form—the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program. The proposed program would permit manufacturers of devices in certain product codes to report malfunctions for those devices on a quarterly basis and in a summary format (instead of reporting them as individual, 30-day reports), subject to certain conditions. Therefore, we have added a line item to the reporting burden table for the proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program.

    FDA believes that submission of voluntary summary reports in the format described in this document would provide the most compact and efficient reporting mechanism for streamlining malfunction reporting that still provides sufficient detail for FDA to monitor devices effectively. The proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program is meant to streamline the process of reporting malfunctions. It does not change regulatory requirements for MDR-related investigations or recordkeeping by manufacturers. The proposed program would neither apply to importers or device user facilities, nor affect requirements under part 803 for importers or device user facilities. The proposed program would not apply to reportable death or serious injury events, as described above in section III.A. In addition, the reporting requirements at § 803.53, which require a 5-day report to be filed at the written request of FDA or if a manufacturer becomes aware of an MDR reportable event that necessitates remedial action to prevent an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health, would continue to apply to manufacturers participating in the proposed program. The conditions of the proposed Voluntary Summary Malfunction Reporting Program would also require manufacturers to submit individual malfunction reports in certain circumstances (see section III.A.). These factors were considered in determining the revised burden estimates described below in table 2.

    For the convenience of the reader, we have included below only the PRA line-items for the estimated annual reporting burden table from OMB control number 0910-0437 that we anticipate would be affected by the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program. We have not included the information collection line-items that we do not anticipate would be affected by the proposed program and which we do not intend to revise at this time.

    Activity/CFR
  • section
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Manufacturer Reporting—§§ 803.50 through 803.53 1,240 272.50 337,900 0.10 (6 minutes) 33,790 Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program 1,240 54.47 67,546 0.10 (6 minutes) 6,755 Supplemental Reports—§ 803.56 1,050 128.71 135,148 0.10 (6 minutes) 13,515 1 There is no change to the capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this revision of the collection of information.

    We believe the availability of the summary reporting option for manufacturers of certain devices would cause a decrease in the number of individual manufacturer reports for malfunctions submitted under §§ 803.50 and 803.52. We have, therefore, revised the estimated number of responses for Manufacturer Reporting—§§ 803.50 through 803.53 accordingly. As explained above in section III.D., the Agency does not yet have a final list of the product codes that would be eligible for the proposed Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program, and FDA does not anticipate that all device product codes would be included in the alternative granted to permit summary, quarterly malfunction reporting. However, based on the scope and conditions of the proposed program, the interest industry has expressed in summary malfunction reporting, and our experience with MDR reporting, FDA estimates that approximately 10 percent of malfunction reports would continue to be submitted as individual reports after implementation of the proposed program. Approximately 67 percent of the manufacturer reports received under §§ 803.50 through 803.53 are malfunction reports (577,316 of the 857,484 total annual responses received in 2016). We therefore estimate the revised Responses per Respondent for “Manufacturer Reporting—§§ 803.50 through 803.53” to be 272.50.

    We estimate that a summary malfunction report would take approximately the same amount of time to prepare as an individual malfunction report. As discussed in section I of this document, FDA's Pilot Program for Medical Device Reporting on Malfunctions showed an 87 percent reduction in the volume of reporting for malfunction reports with use of malfunction summary reporting. Assuming 90 percent of malfunction reports are submitted in summary reports, we estimate that manufacturers would submit an average of 54.47 summary reports annually under this proposed program.

    Based on our experience with supplemental reporting, we estimate that, at most, the number of supplemental reports would be approximately one third of the total number of individual reports and summary reports submitted annually. We, therefore, estimate the revised Responses per Respondent for “Supplemental Reports—§ 803.56” to be 128.71.

    We will update these estimates as appropriate based on comments received on this proposed information collection and the list of eligible device product codes that FDA develops.

    This document also refers to previously approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the OMB under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 4, subpart B, regarding postmarketing safety reporting for combination products have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0834; the collections of information in part 803, regarding medical device reporting, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0437; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 806, regarding corrections and removals, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0359; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 810, regarding medical device recall authority, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0432; the collections of information in part 820, regarding quality system regulations, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information regarding the MedWatch: The Food and Drug Administration Medical Products Reporting Program have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0291; and the collections of information regarding the Adverse Event Program for Medical Devices (Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun)) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0471.

    V. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    1. Food and Drug Administration, “Medical Device Reporting—Alternative Summary Reporting (ASR) Program, Guidance for Industry,” available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072102.pdf.

    2. Food and Drug Administration, Event Problem Codes, available at https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/postmarketrequirements/reportingadverseevents/mdradverseeventcodes/default.htm.

    3. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Form 3500A, available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/aboutfda/reportsmanualsforms/forms/ucm048334.pdf.

    4. MDUFA IV Commitment Letter, available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/MedicalDeviceUserFee/UCM535548.pdf.

    5. Appendix A, “Case Examples of Summary Malfunction Reporting,” available in Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6730.

    6. Electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR), (manufacturers may obtain information on how to prepare and submit reports in an electronic format that FDA can process, review, and archive), available at: http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/FDAeSubmitter/ucm107903.htm.

    Dated: December 19, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27650 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 27 CFR Parts 478 and 479 [Docket No. 2017R-22] RIN 1140-AA52 Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would interpret the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as “bump fire” stocks, fall within that definition. Before doing so, the Department and ATF need to gather information and comments from the public and industry regarding the nature and scope of the market for these devices.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2018. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after Midnight Eastern Standard Time on the last day of the comment period.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number (2017R-22), by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Fax: (202) 648-9741.

    Mail: Vivian Chu, Mailstop 6N-518, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington DC 20226. ATTN: 2017R-22.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANRPM). All comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” section of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vivian Chu, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq., and the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), as amended, 26 U.S.C. 5841 et seq. 1 The Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing these laws to the Director of ATF subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 CFR 0.130. Regulations in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479 implement the GCA and NFA.

    1 NFA provisions still refer to the “Secretary of the Treasury.” However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296 (2002), transferred the functions of ATF from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). Thus, this document refers to the Attorney General.

    The NFA defines “machinegun” as any weapon which: “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” The term also includes “the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

    The GCA defines “machinegun” by reference to the NFA definition. The GCA regulates the transfer and possession of machineguns under 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Section 922(o) makes it unlawful for any person to possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the section or is under the authority of the federal government or a state.

    Those engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in NFA firearms must be registered with the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C. 5801, 5802. When the NFA was enacted in 1934, only a handful of firearms qualified as machineguns, such as the Thompson submachine gun. Over time, however, as firearms technologies have advanced, manufacturers and the public have attempted to develop firearms, triggers, and other devices that permit shooters to use semiautomatic rifles to replicate automatic fire without converting these rifles into “machineguns” within the meaning of the statute. Consequently, questions have arisen about whether these types of devices should be classified as machineguns (or machinegun conversion devices) pursuant to section 5845(b). See, e.g., Internal Revenue Ruling 55-528 (1955) (considering whether types of “Gatling Guns” constitute machineguns); ATF Ruling 2006-2 (examining a firearms accessory device that, when activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiated an automatic firing cycle that continued until release).

    ATF has issued a number of private letters to individuals and manufacturers who voluntarily submitted such devices for classification under the NFA and GCA. In addition, ATF has promulgated a regulation that defines “machinegun,” See 28 CFR 478.11, but that regulation mirrors the statutory language of the NFA and GCA and provides no further interpretation.

    II. Las Vegas Music Festival Attack and Requests To Regulate Bump Stock-Type Devices

    “Bump fire” stocks (bump stocks) are devices used with a semiautomatic firearm to increase the firearm's cyclic firing rate to mimic nearly continuous automatic fire. Since 2008, ATF has issued a total of 10 private letters in which it classified various bump stock devices to be unregulated parts or accessories, and not machineguns or machinegun conversion devices as defined in section 5845(b) of the NFA or section 921(a)(23) of the GCA.

    On October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and several hundred were wounded in Las Vegas, Nevada, by a shooter firing one or more AR-type rifles affixed with a particular bump stock device. In 2010, the manufacturer of this particular device had supplied ATF with a sample of the bump stock, and ATF had examined and classified it as an unregulated firearm part, not subject to either the GCA or NFA.

    Following the Las Vegas shooting, a significant amount of public attention has been focused on bump stock-type devices. ATF has received correspondence from the general public and from members of both houses of Congress requesting that ATF re-examine its past classification decisions concerning bump stock devices to determine whether they should be classified as machineguns within the meaning of section 5845(b). This ANPRM is the initial step in a regulatory process to interpret the definition of machinegun to clarify whether certain bump stock devices fall within that definition. If, in a subsequent rulemaking, the definition of machinegun under section 5845(b) is interpreted to include certain bump stock devices, ATF would then have a basis to re-examine its prior classification and rulings. See Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2125 (2016); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).

    III. Requests for Public Input

    This ANPRM is intended to gather relevant information that is otherwise not readily available to ATF regarding the scope and nature of the market for bump stock type devices. Because ATF does not have the authority to regulate firearm parts and accessories, ATF does not know, with the exception of one well-known manufacturer, how many of the individuals or companies that received classification letters from ATF ever engaged in commercial production and distribution of these devices. Similarly, ATF does not know how many companies or individuals who did not submit bump stock type devices to ATF for voluntary classification determinations are now engaging or have previously been engaged in this business. Further, the individuals and companies who submitted bump stock type devices to ATF for voluntary classification determinations identified some specific target markets for such devices, such as individuals with disabilities, but ATF does not have any information about whether those markets or other markets ultimately materialized for the devices. Consequently, ATF seeks the following information:

    Manufacturers

    Are you, or have you been, involved in the manufacturing of bump stock devices? If so:

    1. In what part(s) of the manufacturing process, are/were you involved?

    2. In what calendar years are/were you involved in the manufacturing process?

    3. What is the wholesale price of the bump stock devices produced by the manufacturing process with which you are involved?

    4. In each calendar year in which you have operated, how many bump stock devices were produced by the manufacturing process with which you are/were involved? Of this number, how many devices were sold to (a) retailers/resellers, and (b) directly to consumers?

    5. What were your approximate gross receipts for the sale of these bump stock devices in each calendar year (from 2014—present)?

    6. For what use or uses have you marketed bump stock devices?

    7. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what would you expect to be the impact on your gross receipts for calendar year 2018?

    8. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what other economic impact would you expect (e.g., storage, unsellable inventory)?

    9. What costs do you expect to be associated with the disposition of existing bump stock device inventory?

    10. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and your reasons for believing such a viable market exists.

    Retailers

    Are you, or have you been, involved in the retail sale of bump stock devices? If so:

    11. In what calendar years are/were you involved?

    12. In each calendar year, how many bump stock devices did you sell?

    13. In each calendar year, what was the average retail price of the bump stock devices you sold?

    14. In each calendar year (from 2014—present) what were your approximate gross receipts derived from the retail sale of bump stock devices?

    15. For what use or uses have you marketed bump stock devices?

    16. In the 2018 calendar year, how many bump stock devices do you anticipate you will sell, assuming that such devices remain classified by ATF as an unregulated firearm part? What do you expect will be the average price at which those bump stock devices will be sold?

    17. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what would you expect to be the impact on your costs/expenses, gross receipts for calendar year 2018?

    18. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what other economic impact would you expect (e.g., storage, unsellable inventory)?

    19. What costs do you expect to be associated with the disposition of existing bump stock device inventory?

    20. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and your reasons for believing such a viable market exists.

    Consumers

    21. In your experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or similar events; or private sales between individuals)?

    22. Based on your experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these devices?

    23. For what purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    This ANPRM has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation, in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”

    The Department has determined that this ANPRM is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this ANPRM has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. However, this action does not propose or impose any requirements. The ANPRM is being published to seek information from the public about the practical impacts of interpreting the statutory definition of “machinegun” such that certain bump stock type devices may fall under that definition.

    Furthermore, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply to this action because, at this stage, it is an ANPRM and not a “rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. Following review of the comments received in response to this ANPRM, if ATF proceeds with a notice or notices of proposed rulemaking regarding this matter, ATF will conduct all relevant analyses as required by statute or Executive Order.

    V. Public Participation A. Comments Sought

    ATF requests comments on this ANPRM from all interested persons with information about the enumerated questions. ATF specifically requests comments on the questions listed above, on the costs or benefits of the proposal in this ANPRM, and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and benefits. Each commenter or commenting party should include the identifying number of the specific question(s) to which it is responding. ATF does not expect commenters to respond to every question; please feel free to respond only to those questions you feel you are able to answer.

    All comments must reference the docket number 2017R-22, be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

    ATF will take into account, as appropriate, the comments received on or before the closing date, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments.

    B. Confidentiality

    ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section available for public viewing at ATF and on the internet as part of the eRulemaking initiative, and subject to the Freedom of Information Act. ATF will not redact personal identifying information that appears within the comment and it will appear on the internet.

    C. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary or confidential business information. The commenter shall place any portion of a comment that is proprietary or confidential business information under law on pages separate from the balance of the comment with each page prominently marked “PROPRIETARY OR CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” at the top of the page.

    ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information submitted in compliance with these instructions available when disclosing the comments that it received, but will disclose that the commenter provided proprietary or confidential business information that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this information, it will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose such proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required by other legal process.

    D. Submitting Comments

    Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method).

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: We strongly recommend that you submit your comments to ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal. Visit http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments must appear in minimum 12 point font size (.17 inches), include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address, be signed, and may be of any length.

    Facsimile: Submit comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 648-9741. Faxed comments must (1) Be legible and appear in minimum 12-point font size (.17 inches); (2) Be on 81/2″ x 11″ paper; and (3) Be signed and contain the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address.

    Disclosure

    Copies of this advance notice, and the comments received will be available at http://www.regulations.gov (search for Docket No. 2017R-22) and for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E-063, 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-8740.

    List of Subjects 27 CFR Part 478

    Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.

    27 CFR Part 479

    Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Excise taxes, Exports, Imports, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seizures and forfeitures, and Transportation.

    Authority and Issuance

    This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.; 26 U.S.C. 5841 et seq.

    Dated: December 19, 2017. Thomas E. Brandon, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27898 Filed 12-21-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36 [CRT Docket No. 138] RIN 1190-AA61; RIN 1190-AA62; RIN 1190-AA64; RIN 1190-AA65 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Notice of Withdrawal of Four Previously Announced Rulemaking Actions AGENCY:

    Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice is announcing the withdrawal of four previously announced Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), pertaining to title II and title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for further review.

    DATES:

    As of December 26, 2017, these four previously announced ANPRMs are formally withdrawn.

    ADDRESSES:

    Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 2885, Fairfax, VA 22031-0885.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anne Raish, Acting Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, at (202) 307-0663 (voice or TTY) (not a toll-free number). Information may also be obtained from the Department's toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice), or (800) 514-0383 (TTY).

    You may obtain copies of this document in an alternative format by calling the ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice), or (800) 514-0383 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Justice is formally announcing the withdrawal of four previously announced Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) pertaining to title II and title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): (1) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of Public Accommodations (RIN 1190-AA61); (2) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services; Next Generation 9-1-1 (RIN 1190-AA62); (3) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by State and Local Governments and Places of Public Accommodation; Equipment and Furniture (RIN 1190-AA64); and (4) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government (RIN 1190-AA65).

    Reasons for Withdrawal A. Accessibility of Web Information

    On July 26, 2010, the Department published an ANPRM regarding the accessibility of Web information and services of state and local government entities (title II) and public accommodations (title III). 75 FR 43460. The Department subsequently bifurcated the rulemaking to deal separately with state and local government entities subject to title II (RIN 1190-AA65) and public accommodations subject to title III (RIN 1190-AA61), and proceeded first with the title II rulemaking. On May 9, 2016, the Department published a Supplemental Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM) regarding title II Web accessibility to seek additional public input regarding a wide range of issues pertaining to the accessibility of Web information and services of state and local governments. 81 FR 28658. The Department has not published any rulemaking document regarding title III Web accessibility since the 2010 ANPRM.

    The Department is evaluating whether promulgating regulations about the accessibility of Web information and services is necessary and appropriate. Such an evaluation will be informed by additional review of data and further analysis. The Department will continue to assess whether specific technical standards are necessary and appropriate to assist covered entities with complying with the ADA. Accordingly, the Department is withdrawing the two previously announced ANPRMs related to the accessibility of Web information and services, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities and Public Accommodations” (RIN 1190-AA61) (75 FR 43460), and “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government” (RIN 1190-AA65) (81 FR 28658).

    B. Accessibility of Equipment and Furniture

    The Department initiated a review of accessibility of equipment and furniture on July 26, 2010, with the publication of an ANPRM to consider possible changes to requirements under titles II and III of the ADA to ensure that non-fixed equipment and furniture provided by covered entities are accessible to individuals with disabilities. 75 FR 43452. While some types of fixed equipment and furniture are explicitly covered by the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, see, e.g., 28 CFR 36.406(b), there are currently no specific provisions in the ADA regulations that include standards governing the accessibility of equipment and furniture that are not fixed. The Department has not published any rulemaking document regarding non-fixed equipment and furniture since the 2010 ANPRM.

    The Department is reevaluating whether regulation of the accessibility of non-fixed equipment and furniture is necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, the Department is withdrawing the previously announced ANPRM entitled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by State and Local Governments and Places of Public Accommodation; Equipment and Furniture” (RIN 1190-AA64) (75 FR 43452).

    C. Next Generation 9-1-1

    On July 26, 2010, the Department published an ANPRM announcing the Department's intention to consider a rule to revise the ADA title II regulation to address how Public Safety Answering Points, which provide 9-1-1 services at the local level, can shift from analog telecommunications technology to new internet-Protocol-enabled Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1) services that will provide voice and data (such as text, pictures, and video) capabilities. 75 FR 43446. The Department has not published any rulemaking document regarding NG 9-1-1 since the 2010 ANPRM.

    The Department is evaluating how best to address the accessibility of NG 9-1-1 services in light of changing circumstances. With the increased adoption of NG 9-1-1, the Department is evaluating whether regulatory action is necessary and appropriate to promote the increased availability of text to 9-1-1 services to improve access for people with communication disabilities. Accordingly, the Department is withdrawing the previously announced ANPRM entitled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services; Accessibility of Next Generation 9-1-1” (RIN 1190-AA62) (75 FR 43446).

    Conclusion

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Department announces the withdrawal of the four above-named ANPRMs. Such ANPRMs had no force or effect of law, and no party should rely upon them as presenting the Department of Justice's position on these issues. This notification does not preclude the Department from issuing other documents on these subjects in the future or commit the Department to any future course of action, nor does it constitute an interpretation of existing law. Should the Department decide to undertake rulemaking in the future, the Department will publish new rulemaking actions and provide new opportunities for public comment. Furthermore, this notification only addresses the specific ANPRMs identified in this document, and does not address any other pending proposals that the Department has issued or is considering.

    Dated: December 15, 2017. John M. Gore, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27510 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0850; FRL-9971-17—Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Revised Statutes AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New Mexico to address the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The revisions address how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of PM2.5 (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). Under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is required to submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a revised primary or secondary NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) require each state to make a new SIP submission within three years after EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS for approval into the existing SIP to assure that the SIP meets the applicable requirements for such new and revised NAAQS. This type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP or “i-SIP.” We propose approval of this action under Section 110 of the Act. EPA is also proposing to approve a SIP revision to update the New Mexico statutes incorporated into the SIP.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0850, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst, (214) 665-6454, [email protected] 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.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherry Fuerst, (214) 665-6454, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with her or Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” mean EPA.

    I. Background

    On December 14, 2012 we promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 µg/m3 (78 FR 3085, January 15,2013), and we retained the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 µg/m3 and the secondary standards. Primary standards are set to protect human health while secondary standards are set to protect public welfare.

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit an i-SIP within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA includes a list of specific elements the i-SIP must include to adequately address such new or revised NAAQS as applicable. EPA issued guidance addressing the i-SIP elements for NAAQS.1 The New Mexico Environment (NMED) and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County each provided demonstrations of how the existing New Mexico SIP meets the applicable 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on August 6, 2015 and December 8, 2015, respectively. Our technical evaluation of these submittals is provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD), which is in the rulemaking.2

    1 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    2 A detailed discussion of our evaluation can be found in the TSD for this action. The TSD can be accessed through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0850).

    Additionally, NMED provided updated statutes for the SIP. Sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 of the CAA require SIPs to contain statutory or regulatory provisions that: (1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA have at least a majority of its members represent the public interest and not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflict of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

    II. EPA's Evaluation of New Mexico's and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's NAAQS Infrastructure Submissions

    The State's submissions on August 6, 2015 and December 8, 2015, demonstrate how the existing New Mexico SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. A detailed discussion of our evaluation can be found in the Technical Support Document TSD for this action. The TSD can be accessed through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0850). Below is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the New Mexico i-SIP and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County i-SIP for each applicable element of 110(a)(2) A-M.

    (A) Emission limits and other control measures: The CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) requires the SIP to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act and other related matters as needed to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS.3 The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Act (EIA), codified in Chapter 74, Article 1 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 (NMSA), created the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB). Statutory authority for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's air quality program, codified in Chapter 74 EIA, Article 2, Air Pollution, of the New Mexico statutes, gives the Air Board and Albuquerque Environmental Health Department's Air Quality Program (AQP) the authority to implement the CAA in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico. NMED has jurisdiction over all of New Mexico except for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. We will distinguish between these two authorities by referring to them as NMED, EIB or the State for everywhere outside of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County and as AQP or the Air Board as everything pertaining to within Bernalillo County.

    3 The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of CAA section 172, not the timing requirement of CAA section 110(a)(1). Thus, CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit regulations or emissions limits specifically for attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Those SIP provisions are due as part of each state's attainment plan, and will be addressed separately from the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.

    The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (AQCA) codified at NMSA 1978, Subpart 74-2 et seq., delegates authority to the EIB to adopt, promulgate, publish, amend and repeal regulations consistent with the AQCA to attain and maintain the NAAQS and prevent or abate air pollution. The AQCA also designates the NMED as the State's air pollution control agency and the EIA provides NMED with enforcement authority everywhere within the State of New Mexico excluding Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. Chapter 2 Title 20 of the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) establishes NMED as the State's air pollution control agency (within the State of New Mexico excluding Albuquerque-Bernalillo County) and establishes its enforcement authority, referencing the NMSA 1978 (44 FR21019, April 9, 1979; revised 49 FR 44101, November 2, 1984; recodification approved in 62 FR 50518, September 26, 1997, approving various statutory and regulatory provisions in New Mexico's SIP). This authority has been employed to adopt and submit multiple revisions to the New Mexico SIP.

    With regard to Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, enforceable emission limitations and other control measures are authorized by the New Mexico AQCA which established the Air Board and those provisions of NMAC Title 20, Environmental Protection, Chapter 11, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board. It can adopt emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to regulated entities; emission standards and limitations and any other measures necessary for attainment and maintenance of national standards; and, enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards and compliance schedules, and seek injunctive relief within the boundaries of Bernalillo County. This authority has been employed to adopt and submit multiple revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico SIP. The approved SIP for the State of New Mexico, including Albuquerque-Bernalillo County is documented at 40 CFR part 52.1620, Subpart GG.4 EPA is therefore proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act with respect to 2012 PM2.5.

    4http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=d13cf1de493c65047374561758ed5ea3&mc=true&r=PART&n=pt40.4.52#sp40.4.52.gg.

    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires SIPs to include provisions for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request.

    The AQCA provides the authority allowing EIB, NMED and AQP to collect air monitoring data, quality-assure the results, and report the data (NMSA 1978, 74-2-5.1(B). New Mexico and AQP each maintain and operate PM2.5 networks to measure ambient levels. All monitoring data is measured using EPA approved methods and subject to the EPA quality assurance requirements. NMED and AQP submit all required data to EPA, following the EPA rules. These networks have been approved into the SIP (46 FR 4005, August 6, 1981) and they undergo recurrent annual review by EPA.5 In addition, NMED and AQP conduct recurrent assessments of their monitoring networks every five years, which includes an evaluation of ambient monitoring for PM2.5, as required by EPA rules. The most recent of these 5-year monitoring network assessments were conducted by NMED and AQP in 2015 and EPA reviewed and commented on these reviews. The comment letter is in the docket.6 The NMED and AQP websites provide the monitor locations and posts past and current concentrations of criteria pollutants measured in these network of monitors.7

    5 A copy of the 2016 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan and EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

    6 A copy of the 2015 5-year ambient monitoring network assessment and EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

    7 See https://www.env.nm.gov/aqb/monitor/airmonitoringnetwork.html.

    In summary, New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County meet the requirement to establish, operate, and maintain an ambient air monitoring network; collect and analyze the monitoring data; and make the data available to EPA upon request. EPA is proposing to find that the current New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to 2012 PM2.5.

    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures: The CAA § 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs include the following three elements: (1) A program providing for enforcement of the measures in paragraph A above; (2) a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources as necessary to protect the applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide permitting of minor sources); and (3) a permit program to meet the major source permitting requirements of the CAA (for areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the NAAQS in question).8

    8 As discussed in further detail in the TSD.

    (1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. As noted in (A), the AQCA provides authority for the EIB, NMED and AQP to enforce the requirements of the AQCA within Albuquerque-Bernalillo County and New Mexico, and any regulations, permits or final compliance orders. Its statutes also provide the EIB, NMED and AQP with general enforcement powers. Among other things, they can file lawsuits to compel compliance with statutes and regulations; commence civil actions; issue field citations, conduct investigations of regulated entities; collect criminal and civil penalties; develop and enforce rules and standards related to protection of air quality; issue compliance orders; pursue criminal prosecutions; investigate, enter into remediation agreements; and issue emergency cease and desist orders. The AQAC also provides additional enforcement authorities and funding mechanisms. (NMSA 1978, sections 74-2-12, 74-2-2, and 74-1-6.F.

    (2) Minor New Source Review. Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires that the SIP include measures to regulate construction and modification of stationary sources to protect the NAAQS. Both the New Mexico (78 FR 15296, March 11, 2013) and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County (69 FR 78312, December 30, 2004) minor NSR permitting requirements are approved as part of the SIP.9

    9 EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the existing New Mexico or Albuquerque-Bernalillo County minor NSR programs to the extent that it may be inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure SIP for element C (e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079, July 13 2011). EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. The statutory requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs.

    (3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. Both Albuquerque-Bernalillo County (80 FR 52401, August 31, 2015) and New Mexico (78 FR 15296, March 11, 2013) PSD program portions of the SIP cover all NSR regulated pollutants as well as the requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and have been approved into the SIP by EPA.10

    10 As discussed further in the TSD.

    (D) Interstate and international transport: Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), there are four requirements the SIP must include relating to interstate transport. The first two of the four requirements are outlined in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and require that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions to other states which will (1) contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS, and (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. The third and fourth requirements are outlined in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and require that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions to other states which will (1) interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration or (2) interfere with measures to protect visibility.

    Both SIP revision submittals included the same attachment with the evaluation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This evaluation considered the following factors:

    • An analysis of the most recent annual PM2.5 design values to determine which areas near New Mexico violate, or are close to violating the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS;

    • An analysis of the PM2.5 annual design value trends in New Mexico (including Bernalillo County) to determine if the PM2.5 concentrations in New Mexico are increasing or decreasing; and,

    • An investigation of PM2.5 annual design value trends in other states to determine whether PM2.5 concentrations in those areas are increasing or decreasing.

    This evaluation concluded that New Mexico did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.

    On March 17, 2016 EPA issued a memo providing information on the development and review of SIPs that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM2.5.11 We used the information in the memo and additional supplemental information for our evaluation and came to the same conclusion as the state. In our evaluation, potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors were identified. These potential receptors were evaluated to determine if New Mexico emissions could possibly contribute to the attainment challenges. After reviewing air quality reports, modeling reports, designation letters, designation technical support documents, attainment plans and other reports for these areas, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisions as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) requirement that New Mexico (including Albuquerque-Bernalillo County) emissions will not interfere with maintenance or contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for any other state.

    11 March 17, 2016 information memo “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).”

    With regard to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), both New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County state that as noted in Element C above, they each have a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD and regional haze programs. As we have approved both New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County comprehensive PSD programs (80 FR 40915, July 14, 2015 and 80 FR 52402, August 31, 2015, respectively) and regional haze plans (79 FR 60992, October 9, 2014, 77 FR 71119, November 29, 2012, respectively), we propose to approve the revisions pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). A more detailed evaluation of how the SIP revisions meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) may be found in the TSD.

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that the SIP contain adequate provisions insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 (relating to interstate pollution abatement) and 115 (relating to international pollution abatement). As stated in their submittals, New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County meet the section 126 requirements as (1) they have fully approved PSD SIPs (Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 80 FR 52401, August 31, 2015 and New Mexico 78 FR 15296, March 11, 2013) which include notification to neighboring air agencies of potential impacts from each new or modified major source and (2) no source or sources have been identified by the EPA as having any interstate impacts under section 126 in any pending action related to any air pollutant. New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County meet section 115 requirements as there are no findings by EPA that New Mexico or Albuquerque-Bernalillo County air emissions affect other countries. Therefore, we propose to approve the submitted revisions pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight: CAA 110(a)(2)(E) requires that the SIP provide for the following: (1) Necessary assurances that the state (and other entities within the state responsible for implementing the SIP) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state or local law to implement the SIP, and that there are no legal impediments to such implementation; (2) Compliance with requirements relating to state boards as required under section 128 of the CAA; and (3) necessary assurances that the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of any plan provision for which it relies on local governments or other entities to carry out that portion of the plan. Both elements (A) and (E) address the requirement that there is adequate authority to implement and enforce the SIP and that there are no legal impediments.

    The i-SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS describe the SIP regulations governing the various functions of personnel within the EIB, NMEQ, AQP and the Air Board, including the administrative, technical support, planning, enforcement, and permitting functions of the program. (NMSA 1978, sections 9-7A-6(B)(4), 9-7A-11A, 74-2-5.1(F) and 74-2-5.2).

    With respect to funding, the AQCA requires NMED to establish an emissions fee schedule for sources in order to fund the reasonable costs of administering various air pollution control programs and authorizes NMED to collect additional fees necessary to cover reasonable costs associated with processing of air permit applications (NMSA 1978, sections 9-7A-6(B)(4), 9-7A-11A, 74-2-5.1.(F) and 74-2-5.2). EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and funding to among other things implement and enforce the SIP. With respect to funding for AQP and the Air Board, the resources to carry out the plan are provided through General Funds, Permit Fees and the CAA grant process. Permit Fees are collected under the authority of NMSA 1978 section 74-2-7.

    As required by § 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA, and the EIA, the SIP must stipulate that any board or body, or head of agency with similar powers adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. NMSA 1978 section 74-1-4 provides the Air Board, contain at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any “significant portion” of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders or who appear before the board on issues related to the CAA or AQCA. The members of the board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, are required to adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

    With respect to assurances that the State and the Air Board have responsibility to implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out portions of the plan, the EIA and the AQCA designate the NMED and the Air Board (within Albuquerque-Bernalillo County) as the primary air pollution control agencies. The statutes allow for local agencies to carry out some or all the Act's responsibilities (NMSA 1978 section 74-2-4.D).

    There is one local air quality control agency, the Air Board, which assumes jurisdiction for local administration and enforcement of the AQCA in Bernalillo County. There are Albuquerque-Bernalillo County SIP provisions which are part of the New Mexico SIP.12

    12 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 40 CFR part 52.1620(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=5388fcaf4e0e68b29abfaececc68fca9&mc=true&node=sp40.4.52.gg&rgn=div6.

    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: CAA § 110(a)(2)(F) requires the SIP provide for the establishment of a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit periodic emission reports. It must require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources, to monitor emissions from such sources. The SIP shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and require that the state correlate the source reports with emission limitations or standards established under the CAA. These reports must be made available for public inspection at reasonable times.

    The AQCA authorizes the NMED and Air Board to require persons engaged in operations which result in air pollution to monitor or test emissions and to file reports containing information relating to the nature and amount of emissions NMSA 1978 section 74-2-5(C)(6). There also are SIP-approved state regulations pertaining to sampling and testing and requirements for reporting of emissions inventories (20.2 NMAC Parts 5,7-8, 10-20, 30-34, 40-41, and 72-74. In addition, SIP rules establish general requirements for maintaining records and reporting emissions (20 NMAC Part 11.47).

    The NMED uses this information, in addition to information obtained from other sources, to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, developing control and maintenance strategies, identifying sources and general emission levels, and determining compliance with SIP regulations and additional EPA requirements. The SIP requires this information be made available to the public. Provisions concerning the handling of confidential data and proprietary business information are included in the SIP's regulations (20 NMAC Part 11.90). These rules specifically exclude from confidential treatment any records concerning the nature and amount of emissions reported by sources. We are proposing that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of CAA§ 110(a)(2)(F).

    (G) Emergency authority: CAA § 110(a)(2)(G) requires a demonstration that the NMED has the authority to restrain any source from causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment. The SIP must include an adequate contingency plan to implement such authorities as necessary.

    The AQCA provides the NMED and the Air Board with authority to address environmental emergencies, inclusive of contingency plans to implement emergency episode provisions.

    Upon a finding that any owner/operator is unreasonably affecting the public health, safety or welfare, or the health of animal or plant life, or property, AQCA authorizes NMED to, after a reasonable attempt to give notice, declare a state of emergency and issue without hearing an emergency special order directing the owner/operator to cease such pollution immediately (NMSA 1978 74-2-10).

    New Mexico promulgated the “Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan for New Mexico,” which includes contingency measures, and these provisions were approved into the SIP on August 21, 1990 (55 FR 34013).

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51, Subpart H, Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes, on January 26, 1989, the Air Board adopted the Air Pollution Contingency Plan for Bernalillo County [8/21/91, 56 FR 38074; 40 CFR 52.1639, Prevention of Air Emergency Episodes], which is part of the SIP, which covers air pollution episodes and the occurrence of an emergency due to the effects of the pollutants on the health of persons.

    (H) Future SIP revisions: CAA § 110(a)(2)(H) requires that States must have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.

    The AQCA requires the NMED to revise its SIP, as necessary, to account for revisions of the NAAQS, new NAAQS, to attain and maintain the NAAQS, to abate air pollution, to adopt more effective methods of attaining the NAAQS, and to respond to EPA SIP calls concerning NAAQS adoption or implementation (NMSA 1978 sections 74-2-5(B)(1) and 74-2-5.2(B)).

    Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's SIP is a compilation of regulations, plans and submittals that act to improve and maintain air quality in accordance with national standards. The authority to develop or revise the SIP is based on the authority to adopt new regulations and revise existing regulations to meet the NAAQS. NMSA 1978 section 74-7-5 gives the Air Board the authority to perform these functions. Section 74-7-5 also gives the Air Board the authority to adopt regulations to abate, control and prohibit air pollution throughout Albuquerque-Bernalillo County in accordance with the State Rules Act. Nothing in New Mexico's statutory or regulatory authority prohibits Albuquerque-Bernalillo County from revising the SIP in the event of a revision to the NAAQS. The AQCA specifically requires revisions to the SIP if the scenarios set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) occur.

    (I) Nonattainment areas: The CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas.

    As noted in element C, above, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking process governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.

    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: The SIP must meet the following three CAA requirements: (1) Section 121, relating to interagency consultation regarding certain CAA requirements; (2) section 127, relating to public notification of NAAQS exceedances and related issues; and (3) prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and (4) visibility protection.

    (1) Interagency consultation: As required by the AQCA, there must be a public hearing before the adoption of any regulations or emission control requirements and all interested persons must be given a reasonable opportunity to submit data, view documents, or argue orally or in writing and to examine testimony of witnesses from the hearing (NMSA 1978 section 74-2-6B, C, and D). In addition, the AQAC provides for the power and duty to “advise, consult, contract with and cooperate with local authorities, other states, the federal government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters of common interest in the field of air quality control.” (NMSA 1978 section 74-2-5.2(B)). Furthermore, New Mexico's PSD SIP rules mandate public participation and notification regarding permitting applications to any other state or local air pollution control agencies, local government officials of the city or county where the source will be located, tribal authorities, and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification. The State's Transportation Conformity SIP rules also provide procedures for interagency consultation, resolution of conflicts, and public notification. These rules apply to both New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.

    (2) Public Notification: The submitted revisions provide the SIP regulatory citations requiring both the Air Board and NMED to regularly notify the public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded, advise the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances, and enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and ways in which the public can participate in efforts to improve air quality. 20.11.82 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures—Air Quality Board, stipulates notice requirements for rulemaking and is used as a guide for notice requirements when adopting SIPs.

    (3) PSD and Visibility Protection: The PSD requirements here are the same as those addressed under (C). The New Mexico SIP requirements for both the state and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County relating to visibility and regional haze are not affected when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS. Therefore, EPA has determined that there are no new visibility protection requirements due to the revision of the NAAQS, and consequently there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to infrastructure element J after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.

    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: The SIP must provide for performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to predict the effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of any NAAQS pollutant, and for submission of such data to EPA upon request (NMSA 1978 section 74-2-5.2(B)).

    AQP has the duty, authority and technical capability to conduct air quality modeling, pursuant to the AQCA, in order to assess the effect on ambient air quality of relevant pollutant emissions; and can provide relevant data as part of the permitting and NAAQS implementation process (NMSA 1978 section 74-2-5.2(B) and 20.2.72 NMAC and 20.2.74 NMAC). AQP follows EPA guidelines for air dispersion modeling. Upon request, AQP will submit current and future data relating to air quality modeling to EPA.

    Likewise, The NMED has the power and duty, under the AQCA to investigate and develop facts providing for the functions of environmental air quality assessment (20.2.72 NMAC and 20.2.74 NMAC). Past modeling and emissions reductions measures have been submitted by the State and approved into the SIP.

    The New Mexico AQCA authorizes and requires NMED to cooperate with the federal government and local authorities concerning matters of common interest in the field of air quality control, thereby allowing the agency to make such submissions to the EPA.

    (L) Permitting Fees: The SIP must require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under CAA section 504, to cover the cost of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and, if the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms of the permit. The fee requirement applies until a fee program established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, relating to operating permits, is approved by EPA.

    The fee requirements of 20.11.2 NMAC have been approved by EPA as meeting the CAA requirements and were incorporated into the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico SIP [4/10/80, 45 FR 24468]. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's title V operating permit program codified at 20.11.42 NMAC, Operating Permits, was approved by EPA on 9/8/04 [FR vol. 69, No. 173, pp. 54244-47]. In addition, see element (E) above for the description of the mandatory collection of permitting fees outlined in the SIP for the entire state.

    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: CAA § 110(a)(2)(M) requires that the SIP must provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

    See element J (1) and (2) for a discussion of the SIP's public participation process, the authority to advise and consult, and the PSD SIP's public participation requirements. Additionally, the AQCA also requires initiation of cooperative action between local authorities and the NMED, between one local authority and another, or among any combination of local authorities and the NMED for control of air pollution in areas having related air pollution problems that overlap the boundaries of political subdivisions, and entering into agreements and compacts with adjoining states and Indian tribes, where appropriate (NMSA 1978 section 74-2-5.2(B)). The transportation conformity component of New Mexico's SIP requires that interagency consultation and opportunity for public involvement be provided before making transportation conformity determinations and before adopting applicable SIP revisions on transportation-related issues.

    Additionally, with regard to the Air Board, the New Mexico State Statute section 74-2-5.2 State Air Pollution Control Agency; Specific Duties and Powers of the Department, states that, “The department is the state air pollution control agency for all purposes under federal legislation relating to pollution. The department is required to “advise, consult, contract and cooperate with local authorities, other states, the federal government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters of common interest in the field of air quality control.”

    III. EPA's Evaluation of CAA Section 128: State Boards and Heads of Executive Agency, Conflicts of Interest

    On August 6, 2015, New Mexico submitted a SIP revision that contains revisions to the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 for inclusion into the SIP. The revisions that are necessary for inclusion into the State's SIP address the requirements of CAA section 128 in relation to State Boards/Heads of Executive Agency and Conflicts of Interest/Disclosure.

    In this submittal, New Mexico demonstrated how State Boards or the head of an executive agency who approves CAA permits or enforcement orders disclose any potential conflicts of interest as required by CAA section 128. The State's Conflict of Interest Act and NM EIB Code of Conduct was initially approved into the SIP on June 1, 1999. This submission updates the prior submission by providing an official change of name for the “Conflict of Interest Act” to “Governmental Conduct Act”, adding definitions, prohibits public officials from disclosing confidential information acquired from local government agency positions, more clearly defining contracts involving public officers or employees, expanding EIB from 5 to 7 members and correcting grammatical errors. The submission included a table specifically outlining all these changes. This table is included in the docket.

    IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the August 6, 2015, and December 8, 2015 submitted revisions for the SIP for New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County pursuant to the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Table below outlines the specific actions EPA is proposing to approve. By this action, EPA is also approving revisions to the New Mexico SIP regarding State Boards or the head of an executive agency who approves CAA permits or enforcement orders for the State of New Mexico. The SIP revisions were submitted by the State to update the SIP with updated language from NMSA.

    Table 1—Proposed Action on New Mexico Infrastructure SIP Submittal for Various NAAQS Element 2012
  • PM2.5
  • (A): Emission limits and other control measures A (B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system A (C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures A (C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major modifications A (C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications A (D)(i): Prohibit emissions to other states which will (1) significantly contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS, (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, (3) interfere with PSD requirements or (4) interfere with visibility protection A (D)(ii): Interstate and International Pollution Abatement A (E)(i): Adequate resources A (E)(ii): State boards A (E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies A (F): Stationary source monitoring system A (G): Emergency power A (H): Future SIP revisions A (I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D + (J)(i): Consultation with government officials A (J)(ii): Public notification A (J)(iii): PSD A (J)(iv): Visibility protection + (K): Air quality modeling and data A (L): Permitting fees A (M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities A Key to Table: A—Proposed Approval. +—Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.

    Based upon our review of these infrastructure SIP submissions and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in these submissions or referenced in the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico or New Mexico SIP, EPA finds that New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County have the infrastructure in place to address all applicable required elements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) to ensure that the 2012 PM2.5, NAAQS are implemented in the state and in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.

    We are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to the New Mexico SIP that provides emendation to the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 and update the federally approved New Mexico SIP accordingly. Those include emendation to the following: New Mexico Statutes at Chapter 9 Department of Environment Act Article 7A-6 Secretary; duties and general powers; and 7A-11 Cooperation with the federal government; authority of secretary; single state agency status; Chapter 10 Public Officers and Employees Article 16-1 through 10-16-16 Governmental Conduct; and Chapter 74 Environmental Improvement Article 1 General Provisions and Article 2 Air Pollution.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the New Mexico Statutes as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please contact Ms. Sherry Fuerst for more information).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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 FR3821, 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 proposed 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.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 13, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27296 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0638; FRL-9972-45-OAR] Denial of Petition To List Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Under Clean Air Act AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final action denying petition for rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that it has responded to a petition for rulemaking titled “Petition To List Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations under Clean Air Act Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, and To Promulgate Standards of Performance Under Clean Air Act Sections 111(b)(1)(B) and 111(d).” The Administrator denied the request in a separate letter to the petitioners. The letter, which provides a full explanation of the agency's rationale for the denial, is in the docket for this action.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on December 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Allison Costa, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1322; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    This Federal Register document, the petition for rulemaking, and the letter denying the petition for rulemaking are available in the docket the EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0638. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act indicates which Federal Courts of Appeals have venue for petitions for review of final EPA actions. This section provides, in part, that the petitions for review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if: (i) The agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) such actions are locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

    Any petitions for review of the letter denying the petition to list concentrated animal feeding operations as a source category described in this notice must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 26, 2018.

    Dated: December 18, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27622 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0234; FRL-9969-97] Alpha-cypermethrin; Proposed Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document proposes to amend existing tolerances for residues of alpha-cypermethrin in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 and hog fat under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This proposal sets an expiration date for the existing tolerances while establishing new lower tolerance levels that will cover the same commodities when the current tolerances expire. EPA is proposing these changes to correct an error in a previous rulemaking that established these tolerances at an unintended level.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0234, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. This Proposal

    EPA, on its own initiative under FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), is proposing to amend the existing tolerances for the insecticide alpha-cypermethrin to reduce the allowable levels of the pesticide in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 from 10 parts per million (ppm) to 0.35 ppm and in or on hog, fat from 1.0 ppm to 0.10 ppm. EPA is proposing this action in order to correct a typographical error that occurred in the final rule establishing these tolerances on February 1, 2013 (78 FR 7266) (FRL-9376-1). In support of the 2013 final rule, EPA had reviewed residue field trial data and determined that the appropriate tolerance levels for fruit, citrus, group 10-10 and for hog, fat were 0.35 ppm and 0.10 ppm, respectively. Unfortunately, the instructions to the Federal Register contained incorrect tolerance values for these commodities and the incorrect tolerance levels were finalized in that rule. To remedy that error, EPA is proposing to correct the tolerance levels.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of alpha-cypermethrin.

    Alpha-cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin are enriched isomers of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin. Although cypermethrin, zeta-cypermethrin, and alpha-cypermethrin are separate active ingredients with different end-use products, they are included together in the hazard evaluation for the purpose of human health risk assessment. The toxicology database for the cypermethrins includes studies with cypermethrin and both of its enriched isomers, and is considered complete for the purpose of risk assessment. When considering alpha-cypermethrin, the EPA also considers potential exposures from the other registered cypermethrins (i.e., cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin), since the three active ingredients are essentially the same active from the mammalian toxicity perspective.

    In the final rule published in the Federal Register of February 1, 2013 (78 FR 7266) (FRL-9376-1), EPA established tolerances for residues of alpha-cypermethrin in multiple commodities. Since the publication of that final rule, the toxicity profile of alpha-cypermethrin (as described in that rule) has not changed, and there have been no revisions to the toxicological database for the cypermethrins since that rule. In addition, although new tolerances have been established since that 2013 rule (tolerances for residues of alpha-cypermethrin in or on food commodities/feed commodities (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments at 0.05 ppm December 1, 2014 (79 FR 73210) (FRL-9918-88); zeta-cypermethrin in or on alfalfa, forage at 15 ppm and alfalfa, hay at 30 ppm December 24, 2014 (79 FR 77391) (FRL-9920-23) and corn, field, forage at 9.0 ppm, corn, field, stover at 30 ppm, corn, pop, stover at 30 ppm July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45435) (FRL-9929-74), these new tolerances have not increased exposure warranting a new risk assessment since the rulemaking in February 2013. Because the risk assessments supporting the establishment of the February 2013 tolerances assessed the correct tolerances associated with fruit, citrus, group 10-10 (0.35 ppm) and hog fat (0.10 ppm) and found them to be adequate, that risk assessment continues to support this proposal. Therefore, EPA is relying on those risk assessments in order to support the corrected tolerances for alpha-cypermethrin in fruit, citrus, group 10-10 and hog fat. EPA did ensure that the percent crop treated information assessed in the 2010 risk assessment is still valid. The most recent Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) dated September 29, 2016 updating PCT data shows that the 2010 estimates are actually overestimates. For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety, refer to the February 1, 2013 Federal Register final rule and its supporting documents, available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0234.

    Based on the risk assessments and information described in this unit, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to alpha-cypermethrin residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate tolerance-enforcement methods are available in PAM Volume II for determining residues of cypermethrin, zeta-cypermethrin and alpha-cypermethrin in plant (Method I) and livestock (Method II) commodities. Both methods are gas chromatographic methods with electron-capture detection (GC/ECD), and have undergone successful Agency petition method validations (PMVs). Method I has a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.01 ppm, and Method II has LODs of 0.005 ppm in milk, and 0.01 ppm in livestock tissues. These methods are not stereospecific; thus no distinction is made between residues of cypermethrin (all eight stereoisomers), zeta-cypermethrin (enriched in four isomers) and alpha-cypermethrin (two isomers).

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    There are multiple Codex MRLs for alpha-cypermethrin, but all are in conjunction with MRLs for total cypermethrin isomers (no MRLs have been established solely for alpha-cypermethrin). However, although the definitions of the isomers covered differ formally between U.S. tolerances and Codex MRLs, the definitions of coverage are effectively harmonized since the tolerance enforcement methods are not stereospecific, and thus do not distinguish between residues of cypermethrin, zeta-cypermethrin and alpha-cypermethrin. For enforcement purposes, the same moiety is being regulated.

    There is a Codex MRL established for citrus fruits at 0.3 ppm and there is no Codex MRL for hog fat. Because the U.S. use patterns differ from those upon which the Codex MRLs are based, EPA is not proposing to harmonize the U.S. tolerance for citrus fruit.

    C. International Trade Considerations

    In this proposal, EPA is proposing to reduce the existing tolerances for commodities in crop group 10-10 from 10 ppm to 0.35 ppm and on hog, fat from 1.0 ppm to 0.1 ppm. The Agency intends to reduce these tolerances to correct the tolerance levels that EPA intended to establish in a previous rulemaking based on available residue data.

    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA will notify the WTO of its intent to revise this tolerance. In addition, the SPS Agreement requires that Members provide a “reasonable interval” between the publication of a regulation subject to the Agreement and its entry into force in order to allow time for producers in exporting Member countries to adapt to the new requirement. At this time, EPA is proposing to allow the existing tolerances remain for a period of six months after the effective date of the final rule, in order to address this requirement.

    This reduction in tolerance levels is not discriminatory; the same food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to domestically produced and imported foods.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend existing tolerances for residues of alpha-cypermethrin in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 and hog, fat at 0.35 ppm and 0.10 ppm, respectively. EPA is also proposing to establish a six-month expiration date for the existing tolerances while establishing new lower tolerances for these commodities.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed action would amend existing tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e) in an action taken on the Agency's own initiative. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), nor is it subject to Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This proposed action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. Furthermore, for alpha-cypermethrin, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present rule that would change EPA's previous analysis. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule, EPA hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, the Agency has determined that this proposed action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that 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.” This proposed action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This proposed action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed action does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed action will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 13, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.418, paragraph (a)(3): a. Revise the existing entries for “Fruit, citrus, group 10-10”; and “Hog, fat”; and add footnote 1”; and b. Add alphabetically the following entries for “Fruit, citrus, group 10-10”; and “Hog, fat”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 180.418 Cypermethrin and isomers alpha-cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin; tolerances for residues.

    (a)(3) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 1 10 Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 0.35 *    *    *    *    * Hog, fat 1 1.0 Hog, fat 0.10 *    *    *    *    * 1 This tolerance expires on June 26, 2018.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27806 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-9972-58—Region 9] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 is issuing a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the surface soil portion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines (PCPL) Superfund Site (Site) located in Fillmore, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of California, through the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), have determined that there is no exposure to contaminated soil at the Site and that all appropriate response actions at the identified parcel under CERCLA, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    This partial deletion pertains to the surface soil; a map indicating the area to be deleted is in the public docket. The groundwater will remain on the NPL and is not being considered for deletion as part of this action.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Project Manager: [email protected] or Community Involvement Coordinator: [email protected]

    Mail: Holly Hadlock (SFD-7-3), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

    Hand delivery: Holly Hadlock (SFD-7-3), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Such deliveries are accepted only during EPA's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following repositories:

    Superfund Records Center, 75 Hawthorne Street Room 3110, San Francisco, California, Hours: 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.; (415) 947-8717.

    Site Repository: Fillmore Library, 502 2nd Street, Fillmore, California. Call (805) 524-3355 for hours of operation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Holly Hadlock, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (SFD-7-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3171, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion I. Introduction

    EPA Region 9 announces its intent to delete the surface soil portion of the PCPL Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL in order to identify sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL are eligible for remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Pacific Coast Pipeline Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the surface soil portion of the Site:

    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion.

    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today.

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.

    (4) The State of California, through DTSC, has concurred with the deletion of the surface soil portion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site from the NPL.

    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in two major local newspapers, the Ventura County Star and the Fillmore Gazette. The notices announce the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments before making a final decision to delete the surface soil portion. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the surface soil portion of the PCPL Superfund Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included in the site information repositories listed above.

    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the surface soil portion of the PCPL Superfund Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    The Site (CERCLIS ID #CAD980636781) is just east of the City of Fillmore in Ventura County, California. It is north of Highway 126 and the Santa Clara River and east of Pole Creek. It was a former oil refinery that shut down in 1950, then a crude oil pumping station until 2002. Refinery wastes from numerous on-site waste pits resulted in groundwater becoming contaminated with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. On June 24, 1988, the Site was proposed for NPL listing (53 FR 23988). On October 4, 1989, EPA added the Site to the NPL (54 FR 41015). There is one site-wide Operable Unit that covers both groundwater and surface soil. The surface soil is being addressed in this proposed action. A map of the proposed deletion area is in the docket.

    Ongoing Development

    The 55-acre former refinery property is zoned for industrial and agricultural use. Land use in the surrounding area is commercial, residential, agricultural, and undeveloped open space. Concurrent with the remedial action, the property was graded into lots for commercial use. The property owner, Chevron Corporation, has leased the property to Cenergy Power for use as a solar energy facility.

    2011 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In 2011 EPA conducted a focused RI of the surface soil, defined as 0 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) for the Site, to determine the nature and extent of soil contamination and to evaluate the potential for soil vapor intrusion. Investigations before the 1992 Record of Decision (ROD) determined that the surface soil was no longer a source of contamination to groundwater because none of the contaminants in the soil were found in the groundwater. Because the contaminants in soil were not migrating to groundwater, EPA limited its soil investigation for the 2011 RI to the surface soil. EPA concluded that there are no exposure pathways for contaminants below 10 feet bgs, as no on-site workers, recreational users, residents, or ecological receptors would be exposed to contaminants below 10 feet.

    The primary contaminants of concern in the soil were lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Three contaminants were detected in soil gas above health-based screening levels in a few areas on the Site: Benzene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene. The vapor intrusion investigation conducted as part of the 2011 RI showed that benzene in groundwater does not pose a vapor intrusion health risk because the benzene vapors are naturally biodegrading to concentrations below health-based levels before making their way to the surface.

    EPA evaluated five remedial alternatives for the soil remedy in the 2011 FS: (1) No action; (2) excavation with off-site disposal; (3) excavation with on-site disposal and capping; (4) excavation with composting; and (5a and 5b) excavation with solidification and on-site disposal (two solidification options were evaluated). All alternatives except for the no action alternative included institutional controls to restrict future use of the property. Alternatives 4 and 5b did not address all soil contaminants and EPA deemed them, along with Alternative 1, not protective of human health and the environment.

    2011 Remedy for Soils

    EPA selected Alternative 3 for the soil remedy in the ROD Amendment dated September 29, 2011. An earlier ROD for the site, dated March 31, 1992, selected groundwater extraction and treatment as the remedy for the contaminated groundwater and soil vapor extraction for the contaminated vadose zone but did not address soil contamination at the Site. The major components of the soil remedy were: (1) Consolidation of excavated soil in a former on-site waste pit; (2) an engineered cap to prevent leaching of contaminants into groundwater; and (3) institutional controls to ensure the cap integrity would be maintained and to restrict the future use of the property to commercial and recreational uses only. The Remedial Action Objectives for soil were: (1) Prevent human exposure through direct dermal contact, ingestion, and inhalation of shallow soil and soil vapor contaminated above threshold levels for commercial land use, construction activities, and recreational activities; (2) prevent contaminants in waste pit (lead, PAHs) from migrating into underlying groundwater; and (3) reduce contamination in soil below toxicity threshold levels so it is not toxic to the plants and animals of the existing scrub habitat.

    The 2011 ROD Amendment cleanup level for surface soil lead is 320 mg/kg. This concentration, based on the Adult Blood-Lead Model, could result in a blood-lead concentration equal to 1 µg/dL in exposed workers and recreational users. In selecting this cleanup level, EPA has prohibited the Site being used for residences, schools, day cares, or a hospital. In addition, two other lead cleanup levels were chosen for ecological receptors in the hillside scrub habitat at the east edge of the site: 26 mg/kg for the top six inches of soil and 56 mg/kg for soil from six inches down to six feet.

    Response Actions

    Pursuant to a Consent Decree, Chevron prepared all remedial design (RD) documents and conducted all soil cleanup activities with EPA and DTSC oversight. RD activities included preparing work plans and design documents, notifying the public, obtaining necessary permits, and conducting additional soil sampling to further delineate the lateral extent of contamination and to determine if the historical soil berms throughout the Site had contamination exceeding ROD Amendment cleanup levels. The main consolidation area (CA) was designed to accommodate 23,500 cubic yards (cy) of soil; however, a supplemental CA was designed as a contingency in case more volume was needed than the original estimate of 19,600 cy.

    RA construction activities took place during two construction seasons, from May 2013 to November 2013 and from March 2014 to November 2014. Contaminated soil was removed from locations with concentrations above cleanup levels including 39 locations with elevated lead, 40 locations with elevated PAHs, and 17 locations with elevated levels of both. In addition, it was determined that elevated levels of chemicals with soil gas survey results exceeding risk-based criteria were co-located with soil containing elevated levels of PAHs and these soils were removed during excavation (RA Report, page 13). Approximately 43,612 cy of soil were excavated during the RA. 41,899 cy were placed in the two CAs: 22,425 cy in the main CA and 19,474 cy in the Supplemental CA. The remaining 1,713 cy, encountered and excavated after the two CA caps were in place, were disposed of as a non-hazardous waste at Clean Harbors' Buttonwillow, California, landfill because these soils did not meet hazardous waste criteria and did not contain RCRA-listed waste. Once analytical results from the lab confirmed that ROD Amendment soil-cleanup levels had been met, the excavations were backfilled with clean fill. A 5-foot-thick engineered cap was placed on each CA. Each cap consists of several layers designed to prevent penetration and vertical water infiltration.

    Cleanup Levels

    EPA reviewed data from soil samples collected and analyzed from each excavation location to confirm that ROD Amendment cleanup levels had been met. Post-remediation soil vapor sampling was conducted to confirm that soil gas cleanup levels had been met. In 2015 EPA determined that all contaminants of concern were below their cleanup levels and that the remedy was functioning as designed.

    Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring

    The operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) of the soil remedy includes periodic inspections of the CA caps and performance of any necessary maintenance. The Final Soil Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan establishes an inspection, monitoring, and maintenance program and a schedule of activities for the first five years following the 2014 completion of the soil RA. Chevron is responsible for OM&M activities and EPA is responsible for oversight.

    Institutional Controls/Restrictions on Use of the Site

    The soil remedy for the Site includes institutional controls to restrict future property use to commercial and recreational purposes and to limit actions that could interfere with the remedy (the caps). Consistent with the institutional controls selected in the ROD Amendment, EPA, DTSC, and Chevron developed a land use covenant to restrict the use of the Site; this covenant was recorded at the Ventura County Recorder's Office on August 19, 2016, and “runs with the land,” meaning the restrictions are binding on current and subsequent property owners and remain in effect until they are formally removed or modified. A copy of the covenant is in the docket.

    2016 Five-Year Review

    EPA conducts reviews every five years to determine if remedies are functioning as intended and if they continue to be protective of human health and the environment. Because contaminants remain in the PCPL Site soil above levels that would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, EPA will continue to conduct five-year reviews, as required by statute. EPA issued the Fourth Five-Year Review Report on August 22, 2016, and concluded that the soil remediation is complete and the remedy at the PCPL Site is functioning as intended and is protective of human health and the environment in both the short-term and the long-term. There were no issues or recommendations. EPA will conduct the next five-year review in 2021.

    Community Involvement

    EPA prepared a Community Involvement Plan in 2011. EPA held numerous community meetings before and during the soil cleanup, and issued fact sheets and postcard updates. EPA also conducted Site tours before the soil cleanup began. At EPA's request, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry prepared a Health Consultation that evaluated the possible health effects from airborne dust at the Site. It concluded that community members were not likely to be exposed to lead or PAHs in Site soil or dust at levels that could cause health effects. EPA released a fact sheet shortly before publication of this Notice informing the community of the proposal to delete the surface soil portion of the Site from the NPL and how to submit comments.

    Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    EPA has followed all procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e), Deletion from the NPL. EPA consulted with the State of California prior to developing this Notice. EPA determined that the responsible party has implemented all appropriate response actions required and that no further response action for the surface soil portion of the Site is appropriate. EPA is publishing a notice in two major local newspapers, The Ventura County Star and the Fillmore Gazette, of its intent to partially delete the Site and how to submit comments. EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the Site information repositories; these documents are available for public inspection and copying.

    The implemented soil remedy achieved the degree of cleanup and protection specified in the ROD Amendment for the surface soil portion of the Site. The selected remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels for the surface soil are consistent with agency policy and guidance. Based on information currently available to EPA, no further Superfund response in the area proposed for deletion is needed to protect human health and the environment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p.306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: December 18, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27794 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002; FRL-9972-37—Region 3] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the C&D Recycling Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the C&D Recycling Superfund Site (Site) located in Foster Township, Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude EPA from taking future actions at the Site under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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:

    Gregory Voigt, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Mail Code 3HS21, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19001, (215) 814-5737, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the C&D Recycling Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: December 1, 2017. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, EPA, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27802 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 246 Tuesday, December 26, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 20, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by January 25, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Research Service

    Title: SNAP-Ed Connection Recipe Submission and Review Form (“What's Cooking?” USDA Mixing Bowl).

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0624.

    Summary of Collection: The authority for FNS to collect this information is contained in Section 28 of the Food and Nutrition Act (FNA) of 2008, as amended through Public Law 113-128. The What's Cooking? USDA Mixing Bowl (formerly the Food Stamp Nutrition Connection Recipe Finder, and then SNAP-Ed Connection Recipe Finder) https://whatscooking.fns.usda.gov is an online recipe database.

    Need and Use of the Information: This database is a central location for recipe users to search for healthy recipes that support the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The recipe database is a combination of recipes from USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) programs such as the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), SNAP-Ed, and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP). The recipes benefit consumers (Individuals/Households), SNAP-Ed personnel, State Agency staff, school nutrition personnel (State, Local & Tribal Agencies) and the private sector (Business).

    Description of Respondents: (105) Individual/Households, (55) Business-for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; (90) State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 250.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Once, On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 27.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27727 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 20, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by January 25, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Risk Management Agency

    Title: General Administrative Regulations; Subpart V—Submission of Policies, Provisions of Policies, Rates of Premium, and Non-Reinsured Supplemental Policies.

    OMB Control Number: 0563-0064.

    Summary of Collections: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) amends the procedures for the submission of policies, plans of insurance, or other rates or premium by insurance companies, entities or other persons. Public Law 96-365 provided for nationwide expansion of a comprehensive crop insurance program. The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended, expanded the role of the crop insurance to be the principal tool for risk management by producers of farm products and required that the crop insurance program operate on an actuarially sound basis. It provides for independent reviews of insurance products by persons experienced as actuaries and in underwriting. The Act was further amended in 2008 to provide the opportunity for the submission of a concept proposal to the FCIC Board of Directors (Board) for approval for advance payment of estimated research and development expenses.

    Need and Use of the Information: An applicant has the option to submit a concept proposal or a submission package for a crop insurance product and have it presented to the Board. The Board will review an applicant's submissions to determine, if the interests of agricultural producers and taxpayers are protected; the submission is actuarially appropriate; appropriate insurance principles are followed; the requirements of the Act are met; and that sound, reasonable and appropriate underwriting principals are followed. If the information is incomplete, the submission will be disapproved.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other-for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 195.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping: Reporting; Other.

    Total Burden Hours: 44,947.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27708 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 20, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by January 25, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

    Title: USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form.

    OMB Control Number: 0508-0002.

    Summary of Collection: Under 7 CFR 15.6 “any person who believes himself or any specific class of individuals to be subjected to discrimination . . . may by himself or by an authorized representative file a written complaint based on the ground of such discrimination.” The collection of this information is the avenue by which the individual or his representative may file such a complaint. The requested information is necessary in order for the Office of Civil Rights to address the alleged discriminatory action.

    Need and Use of the Information: The requested information which can be submitted by filling out the Program Discrimination Form or by submitting a letter, is necessary in order for the USDA Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) to address the alleged discriminatory action. The respondent is asked to provide his/her name, mailing address, property address (if different from mailing address), telephone number, email address (if any) and to provide a name and contact information for the respondent's representative (if any). A brief description of who was involved with the alleged discriminatory action, what occurred and when, is requested. The program discrimination complaint filing information, which is voluntarily provided by the respondent, will be used by the staff of USDA OASCR to investigate, attempt resolution and settle the case. If information regarding alleged discrimination is not collected from the individual who believes he/she has experienced discrimination in a USDA program, it would not be possible for the USDA to address and rectify the alleged discrimination.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; and Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 141.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 141.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27709 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-9R-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 20, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by December 26, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Gypsy Moth Identification Worksheet.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0104.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701— et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture either independently or in cooperation with the States, is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pest new to the United States or not widely distributed throughout the United States. The Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), a program within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), is responsible for implementing the intent of this Act, and does so through the enforcement of its Domestic Quarantine Regulations contained in Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 301. The European gypsy moth is one of the most destructive pests of fruit and ornamental trees as well as hardwood forests. The Asian gypsy moth is an exotic strain of gypsy moth that is closely related to the European variety already established in the U.S. Due to significant behavioral differences, this strain is considered to pose an even greater threat to trees and forested areas. In order to determine the presence and extent of a European gypsy moth or an Asian gypsy moth infestation, APHIS sets traps in high-risk areas to collect specimens.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information from the Specimens for Determination, PPQ Form 391, to identify and track specific specimens that are sent to the Otis Development Center for identification tests based on DNA analysis. This information collected is vital to APHIS' ability to monitor, detect, and eradicate gypsy moth infestations and the worksheet is completed only when traps are found to contain specimens.

    Information on the worksheet includes the name of the submitter, the submitter's agency, the date collected, the trap number, the trap's location (including the nearest port of entry), the number of specimens in the trap, and the date the specimen was sent to the laboratory. APHIS will also use the Gypsy Moth Checklist and Record Your Self-Inspection, PPQ Form 377 to collect information on required inspection of outdoor household articles that are to be moved from a gypsy moth quarantined area to a non-quarantined area to ensure that they are free of all life stages of gypsy moth.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households; State, Local or Tribal Government; and Business.

    Number of Respondents: 2,500,100.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting; On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,711,543.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Karnal Bunt; Revision of Regulations for Importing Wheat.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0240.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, or movement of plants and plant pests to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), domestic Karnal bunt regulations are contained in Subpart-Karnal Bunt (7 CFR 301.89-1 through 301.89-16). Karnal bunt is a fungal disease of wheat. Karnal bunt is caused by the smut fungus Tilletia indica (Mitra) Mundkur and is spread by spores, primarily through the movement of infected seed.

    Need and Use of the Information: In order for APHIS to verify that the articles are being imported in compliance with the regulations, the articles would have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of the region of origin. The certificate must include a declaration stating that the regulated articles originated in areas where Karnal bunt is not known to occur, as attested to either by survey resulting or by testing for bunted karnals or spores.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 4.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 150.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27722 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana 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 Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday January 5, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of preparing for its public meeting on voting rights issues in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, January 5, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. EST.

    PUBLIC CALL INFORMATION:

    Dial: 877-879-6207, Conference ID: 5031484.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll free number. 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 Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office 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, Indiana Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=247). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion: Voting Rights in Indiana Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: December 20, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27779 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [11/17/2017 through 12/18/2017] Firm name Firm address Date
  • accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Eminence Speaker, LLC 838 Mulberry Pike, Eminence, KY 40019 12/14/2017 The firm manufactures loudspeakers for home use, automobiles, and professional and commercial uses. SolarWorld Americas, Inc 25300 NW Evergreen Road, Hillsboro, OR 97124 12/14/2017 The firm manufactures solar cells and solar modules.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Irette Patterson, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27725 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 2042] Approval of Expanded Subzone Status; BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC; Duncan, South Carolina

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for “. . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of subzones for specific uses;

    Whereas, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 38, has made application to the Board to expand subzone 38A on behalf of BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC, located in Duncan, South Carolina (FTZ Docket B-55-2017, docketed August 16, 2017);

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (82 FR 39759, August 22, 2017) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's memorandum, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby approves the expansion of subzone 38A on behalf of BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC, as described in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27783 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-979, C-570-980] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Intent To Revoke Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On October 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a request for revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (China) with respect to certain solar panels. We preliminarily determine that the Orders shall be revoked, in part, with respect to certain solar panels of a sufficiently small size, voltage, amperage, and wattage, among other characteristics, as described below. Commerce invites interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable December 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren Caserta or Kaitlin Wojnar, 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) 482-4737 and (202) 482-3857, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 7, 2012, Commerce published AD and CVD orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China.1 On October 6, 2017, Pitsco, Inc. d/b/a/Pitsco Education (Pitsco), an importer of the subject merchandise, requested through a changed circumstances review revocation, in part, of the Orders pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b), with respect to certain solar panels.2 On October 13, 2017, SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (the petitioner) submitted a letter stating that it does not oppose the scope exclusion language proposed by Pitsco.3 From October 25, 2017, through November 8, 2017,4 Commerce consulted with both Pitsco and SolarWorld regarding revisions to the proposed exclusion language; specifically, Commerce suggested limiting the language to a description of the physical characteristics of the product and also expressed concerns regarding the dimensions indicated in the description.5 Accordingly, on November 10, 2017, Pitsco submitted revised exclusion language based on these consultations.6 On November 13, 2017, SolarWorld submitted a letter stating that it does not oppose the revised exclusion language submitted by Pitsco on November 10, 2017.7

    1Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012) and Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 (December 7, 2012) (collectively, Orders).

    2 Pitsco's Letter, “Request for Changed Circumstances Review (A-570-980; C-570-979),” dated October 6, 2017 (Pitsco's Request).

    3 SolarWorld's Letter, “Pitsco, Inc.'s Scope Exclusion Language—Letter of No Opposition,” dated October 13, 2017 (Letter of No Opposition).

    4 Memorandum, “Ex Parte Communications with Adduci, Mastriani and Wiley Rein,” dated November 13, 2017 (Ex Parte Memo).

    5Id.

    6 Pitsco's Letter, “Amended Changed Circumstances Review (A-570-980; C-570-979),” dated November 10, 2017 (Pitsco's Amended Request).

    7 SolarWorld's Letter, “Pitsco, Inc.'s Scope Exclusion Language—Letter of No Opposition,” dated November 13, 2017 (Revised Letter of No Opposition).

    On November 27, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the requested changed circumstances reviews.8 Because the statement submitted by the petitioner in support of Pitsco's amended request did not indicate whether the petitioner accounts for substantially all of the domestic production of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, in the Initiation Notice, we invited interested parties to submit comments concerning industry support for the potential revocation, in part, as well as comments and/or factual information regarding the changed circumstances reviews.9 No comments or factual information was submitted by any party.

    8Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Part, 82 FR 55987 (Nov. 27, 2017) (Solar CCR Initiation Notice).

    9Id.

    Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China

    The merchandise covered by the orders is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.

    The orders cover crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

    Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the orders.

    Excluded from the scope of the orders are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).

    Also excluded from the scope of the orders are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.

    Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in China are covered by the orders; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in China from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the orders.

    Merchandise covered by these orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

    Scope of Changed Circumstances Reviews

    Pitsco requests that Commerce revoke the Orders, in part, to exclude certain small solar panels, as described below. The revised unopposed language submitted by Pitsco is as follows: 10

    10See Pitsco's Amended Request.

    Excluded from the scope of these orders are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm2 to 33,782 mm2 with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22 AWG or 24 AWG not more than 206 mm in length when measured from panel extrusion), and not exceeding 2.9 volts, 1.1 amps, and 3.19 watts. No panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports.

    Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Intent To Revoke the Orders, in Part

    Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g), Commerce may revoke an AD or CVD order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (i.e., a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 782(h)(2) of the Act gives Commerce the authority to revoke an order if producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order. Section 351.222(g) of Commerce's regulations provides that Commerce will conduct a changed circumstances review under 19 CFR 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it concludes that: (i) Producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part; or (ii) if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist. Both the Act and Commerce's regulations require that “substantially all” domestic producers express a lack of interest in the order for Commerce to revoke the order, in whole or in part.11 Commerce has interpreted “substantially all” to represent producers accounting for at least 85 percent of U.S. production of the domestic like product.12

    11 Section 782(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g).

    12Honey from Argentina; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews; Preliminary Intent to Revoke Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 67790, 67791 (November 14, 2012), unchanged in Honey from Argentina; Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews; Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 77029 (December 31, 2012).

    Commerce's regulations do not specify a deadline for the issuance of the preliminary results of a changed circumstances review, but provide that Commerce will issue the final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated.13 Commerce did not issue a combined notice of initiation and preliminary results. As discussed above, the statement provided by the petitioner and offered in support of Pitsco's amended request did not indicate whether the petitioner accounts for substantially all domestic production of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells.14 Thus, Commerce did not determine in the Initiation Notice that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product lacked interest in the continued application of the Orders as to the certain solar panels under consideration here. Further, Commerce requested interested party comments on the issue of domestic industry support of a potential partial revocation of the Orders. 15 Commerce received no comments concerning a lack of industry support with respect to these changed circumstances reviews.

    13 19 CFR 351.216(e).

    14Solar CCR Initiation Notice.

    15Id.

    As noted in the Initiation Notice, Pitsco requested revocation of the Orders, in part, and supported its request. In light of Pitsco's amended request, the petitioner's agreement with the scope exclusion language proposed by Pitsco, and in the absence of any interested party comments received during the comment period, we preliminarily conclude that changed circumstances warrant revocation of the Orders, in part, because the producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the Orders pertain lack interest in the relief provided by the Orders with respect to certain small solar panels, as described above. We will consider comments from interested parties on these preliminary results of reviews before issuing the final results of these reviews.16

    16E.g., Honey from Argentina; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews; Preliminary Intent to Revoke Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 67790, 67791 (November 14, 2012); Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Intent to Revoke Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Part, 78 FR 66895 (November 7, 2013); 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(v).

    Accordingly, we are notifying the public of our intent to revoke the Orders, in part. We intend to carry out this revocation by including the following exclusion language in the scope of each of the Orders: 

    Excluded from the scope of these orders are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm2 to 33,782 mm2 with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22 AWG or 24 AWG not more than 206 mm in length when measured from panel extrusion), and not exceeding 2.9 volts, 1.1 amps, and 3.19 watts. No panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports.

    If we make a final determination to revoke the Orders in part, then Commerce will apply this determination to each order as follows. If, at the time of the final determinations, there have been no completed administrative reviews of an order, then the partial revocation will be applied to unliquidated entries of merchandise subject to the changed circumstances review that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date that corresponds to the date suspension of liquidation first began in the relevant proceeding. If, at the time of the final determinations, there have been completed administrative reviews of an order, then the partial revocation will be retroactively applied to unliquidated entries of merchandise subject to the changed circumstances reviews that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the day following the last day of the period covered by the most recently completed administrative review of the applicable order. The most recently completed administrative review of the AD order (A-570-979) was completed on June 20, 2017, and covered December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2015.17 Therefore, under this scenario, the partial revocation for merchandise subject to the AD orders would be applied retroactively to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after December 1, 2015. The most recently completed administrative review of the CVD order (C-570-980) was completed on July 10, 2017, and covered January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014.18 Therefore, the partial revocation for merchandise subject to the CVD order would be applied retroactively to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after January 1, 2015, as applicable.

    17Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 40560 (August 25, 2017).

    18Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and Partial Recession of countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014, 82 FR 32678 (July 17, 2017).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of reviews in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Case briefs may be submitted no later than 14 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.19 Rebuttals to case briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the due date for case briefs.20 All submissions must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due dates set forth in this notice.

    19 Commerce is altering the deadline for the submission of case briefs, as authorized by 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    20 Commerce is altering the deadline for the submission of rebuttal briefs, as authorized by 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 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 at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 in a room to be determined.21

    21 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    Commerce intends to issue the final results of these changed circumstances reviews, which will include its analysis of any written comments received, no later than 270 days after the date on which these reviews were initiated.

    If, in the final results of these reviews, Commerce continues to determine that changed circumstances warrant the revocation of the Orders, in part, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate without regard to AD or CVD duties all unliquidated entries of the merchandise covered by the exclusion language above entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the effective dates indicated above. In addition, we will instruct CBP to refund any estimated AD or CVD cash deposits collected on such entries.

    The current requirement for cash deposits of estimated AD and CVD duties on all entries of subject merchandise will continue unless they are modified pursuant to the final results of these changed circumstances reviews. If, in the final results of these reviews, Commerce continues to determine that changed circumstances warrant the revocation of the Orders, in part, we will instruct CBP to discontinue collecting cash deposits on entries of merchandise covered by the exclusion language above effective on the date of publication of the final results of these changed circumstances reviews.

    These preliminary results of reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221 and 19 CFR 351.222.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27748 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF507 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Boost-Back and Landing of Falcon 9 Rockets AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Space Exploration Technology Corporation (SpaceX) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during boost-back and landing of Falcon 9 rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and at contingency landing locations in the Pacific Ocean.

    DATES:

    This Authorization is valid from December 1, 2017, through November 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

    The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    Summary of Request

    NMFS received a request from SpaceX for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, including in-air boost-back maneuvers and landings of the First Stage of the Falcon 9 rocket at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California, and at contingency landing locations offshore. SpaceX's request was for harassment only and NMFS concurs that mortality is not expected to result from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

    SpaceX's application for incidental take authorization was received on July 11, 2017. SpaceX submitted a revised version of the request on October 13, 2017. This revised version of the application was deemed adequate and complete. The planned activity may exceed one year, hence subsequent MMPA incidental harassment authorizations may be requested for this particular activity.

    The planned activities include in-air boost-back maneuvers and landings of the First Stage of the Falcon 9 rocket. The action may occur as many as 12 times and may occur at any time of year. Species that are expected to be taken by the planned activity include harbor seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion, northern elephant seal, northern fur seal, and Guadalupe fur seal. SpaceX's activities are expected to produce noise, in the form of sonic booms, that are expected to result in harassment of marine mammals that are hauled out of the water. Take by Level B harassment only is expected; no injury or mortality of marine mammals is expected to result from the activities.

    This is the second IHA issued by NMFS for this activity. SpaceX applied for, and was granted, an IHA in 2016 that was valid from June 30, 2016 through June 29, 2017 (81 FR 34984; June 30, 2016). SpaceX complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHA.

    Description of Activity

    The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by SpaceX for transport of satellites and SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft into orbit. SpaceX currently operates the Falcon Launch Vehicle Program at Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E) at VAFB. SpaceX plans to conduct recovery of the Falcon 9 First Stage by returning the First Stage to SLC-4 West (SLC-4W) at VAFB for potential reuse, up to twelve times per year. This includes performing in-air boost-back maneuvers and landings of the Falcon 9 First Stage on the pad at SLC-4W. The reuse of the Falcon 9 First Stage enables SpaceX to efficiently conduct lower cost launch missions from VAFB in support of commercial and government clients.

    Although SLC-4W is the preferred landing location, SpaceX has identified the need for contingency landing locations should it not be feasible to land the First Stage at SLC-4W. The first contingency landing option is on a barge located at least 27 nautical miles (nm) (50 kilometers (km)) offshore of VAFB. The second contingency landing option is on a barge within the Iridium Landing Area, an area approximately 33,153 square kilometers (km2) area that is located approximately 122 nm (225 km) southwest of San Nicolas Island and 133 nm (245 km) southwest of San Clemente Island (see Figure 1-3 in the IHA application).

    During descent, a sonic boom (overpressure of high-energy impulsive sound) would be generated when the First Stage reaches a rate of travel that exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic booms would occur in proximity to the landing areas and may be heard during or briefly after the boost-back and landing, depending on the location of the observer. Sound from the sonic boom has the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals, either on the mainland at or near VAFB, or at the Northern Channel Islands (NCI). Based on model results, a boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce sonic booms with overpressures that would potentially be as high as 8.5 pounds per square foot (psf) at VAFB and potentially as high as 3.1 psf at the NCI. Sonic boom modeling indicates that landings that occur at either of the proposed contingency landing locations offshore would result in sonic booms below 1.0 psf. Take of marine mammals that are hauled out of the water are expected to occur only when those hauled out marine mammals experience sonic booms greater than 1.0 psf (this is discussed in greater detail below in the section on Estimated Take). Therefore, take of marine mammals may occur as a result of landings that occur at VAFB; however, take of marine mammals is not expected to occur as a result of landings that occur at either of the proposed contingency landing locations offshore. Sounds resulting from SpaceX's activities other than sonic booms, as well as other aspects of SpaceX's activities such as unsuccessful landings, are not expected to result in take of marine mammals and are not discussed further in this document.

    The activities authorized in this IHA are limited to Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back maneuvers and landings. Incidental take of marine mammals resulting from Falcon 9 rocket launches from VAFB is already authorized via regulations (79 FR 10016; February 24, 2014) and a Letter of Authorization (LOA) (79 FR 18528; April 2, 2014). As such, NMFS does not authorize take of marine mammals incidental to launches of the Falcon 9 rocket in this IHA; incidental take resulting from Falcon 9 rocket launches is therefore not analyzed further in this document.

    A detailed description of the planned activities is provided in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (82 FR 49332; October 25, 2017). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned activities. Therefore, a more detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for a more detailed description of the specific activities. Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Mitigation” and “Monitoring and Reporting”).

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS published a notice of proposed IHA in the Federal Register on October 25, 2017 (82 FR 49332). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received a comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). NMFS has posted the comments online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental. The following is a summary of the public comments received and NMFS's responses.

    Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS include Falcon 9 recovery activities as a proposed amendment to the United States Air Force's (USAF) final rule (79 FR 10016; February 24, 2014) rather than authorizing those activities in separate IHAs until the rule expires in 2019, and that NMFS ultimately include Falcon 9 recovery activities in the future proposed rule that will cover all other rocket activities conducted by USAF at VAFB beginning in 2019. The Commission also recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, which are included as proposed in the final IHA.

    Response: NMFS agrees that streamlining in the MMPA incidental take authorization process is desirable when possible and we will work with the USAF to determine whether it is practicable to incorporate Falcon 9 recovery activities in any future regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to rocket launch activities that occur at VAFB.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Section 4 of the IHA application summarizes available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. We have reviewed SpaceX's species descriptions, including life history information, distribution, regional distribution, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and completeness, and we refer the reader to Section 4 of the IHA application, rather than reprinting the information here. A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the specified activities, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (82 FR 49332; October 25, 2017). Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species accounts.

    Table 1 lists all marine mammal species with expected occurrence in the project area (including at VAFB, on the NCI, and in the waters surrounding VAFB, the NCI and the contingency landing location) that are expected to be affected by the specified activities, and summarizes information related to the populations, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are an additional 28 species of marine mammals (all cetaceans) with expected or possible occurrence in the project area. However, we have determined that sonic booms are the only potential stressor associated with the activity that could result in take of marine mammals, and that sonic booms only have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals that are hauled out of the water. Therefore, we have concluded that the likelihood of the planned activities resulting in the harassment of any cetacean to be so low as to be discountable. As we have concluded that the likelihood of any cetacean being taken incidentally as a result of SpaceX's activities to be so low as to be discountable, cetaceans are not considered further in this document and no take of cetaceans is authorized in the IHA. Please see Table 3-1 in SpaceX's IHA application for a complete list of species with expected or potential occurrence in the project area.

    All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in NMFS's stock assessment reports (SAR) (e.g., Carretta et al., 2017; Muto et al., 2017). Please see the SARs, available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance. Abundance estimates presented in Table 1 represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. PBR, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population, is considered in concert with known sources of ongoing anthropogenic mortality to assess the population-level effects of the anticipated mortality from a specific project (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized in this IHA, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). For status of species, we provide information regarding U.S. regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA.

    Table 1—Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area Species Stock ESA/MMPA status;
  • Strategic
  • (Y/N) 1
  • Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most
  • recent abundance
  • survey) 2
  • PBR 3 Annual
  • M/SI 4
  • Relative occurrence in project area;
  • season of
  • occurrence
  • Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) U.S. -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 2011) 9,200 389 Abundant; year-round. Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) California -; N 14,050 (n/a; 7,524; 2013) 451 1.8 Abundant; year-round; peak occurrence during summer. Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus philippii townsendi) n/a T/D; Y 20,000 (n/a; 15,830; 2010) 542 3.2 Rare; slightly more common in summer. Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Eastern U.S -; N 71,562 (n/a; 41,638; 2015) 2,498 108 Rare; year-round. Family Phocidae (earless seals) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) California -; N 30,968 (n/a; 27,348; 2012) 1,641 43 Abundant; year-round. Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) California breeding -; N 179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 2010) 4,882 8.8 Abundant; year-round; peak occurrence during winter. 1 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3 Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). 4 These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

    Marine Mammal Hearing—Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibels (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms. The relevant functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within that group):

    • Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 hertz (Hz) to 86 kilohertz (kHz), with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;

    • Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best hearing between 2-48 kHz.

    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).

    Table 2—Relevant Marine Mammal Functional Hearing Groups and Their Generalized Hearing Ranges Hearing group Generalized hearing range* Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) 50 Hz to 86 kHz. Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) 60 Hz to 39 kHz. * Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for PW pinniped (approximation).

    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Of the six marine mammal species that may be affected by the planned activities, four are classified as otariids and two are classified as phocids.

    Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    The effects of noise from SpaceX's activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (82 FR 49332; October 25, 2017) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and their habitat, therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to that Federal Register notice for that information. No instances of injury, serious injury or mortality are expected as a result of SpaceX's activities.

    Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.

    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    All authorized takes are by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to sounds associated with the planned activities. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment, serious injury, and mortality are neither anticipated nor authorized in this IHA.

    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed; (2) the area that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) and number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the take estimate.

    Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). As described above, Level A harassment is not expected to occur as a result of the planned activities and we do not authorize take by Level A harassment, thus criteria and thresholds for Level A harassment are not discussed further. Thresholds have been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed. In this case, we are concerned only with in-air sound as the planned activities are not expected to result in harassment of marine mammals that are underwater. Thus, only in-air thresholds are discussed further.

    Level B Harassment for Non-Explosive Sources

    Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment, and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. For in-air sounds, NMFS expects that harbor seals exposed to sound above received levels of 90 dB re 20 micro Pascals (μPa) (root mean squared (rms)) will be behaviorally harassed, and all other species of pinnipeds exposed to sound above received levels of 100 dB re 20 μPa (rms) will be behaviorally harassed (Table 3).

    Table 3—Recommended Criteria for Pinniped Harassment From Exposure to Airborne Sound Species Level B harassment threshold Harbor seals 90 dB re 20 μPa. All other pinniped species 100 dB re 20 μPa.

    Typically, NMFS relies on the acoustic criteria shown in Table 3 to estimate take as a result of exposure to airborne sound from a given activity. However, in this case we have the benefit of more than 20 years of observational data on pinniped responses to the stimuli associated with the planned activity that we expect to result in harassment (sonic booms) in the particular geographic area of the planned activity (VAFB and the NCI). Therefore, we consider these data to be the best available information in regard to estimating take based on modeled exposures among pinnipeds to sounds associated with the planned activities. These data suggest that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are dependent on the species and the intensity of the sonic boom (Table 4).

    The USAF has monitored pinniped responses to rocket launches from VAFB for over 20 years. Though rocket launches are not part of the planned activities (as described above), the acoustic stimuli associated with launches (e.g., sonic booms) is expected to be substantially similar to those expected to occur with Falcon 9 boost-backs and landings; therefore, we rely on observational data on responses of pinnipeds to sonic booms associated with rocket launches from VAFB in making assumptions about expected pinniped responses to sonic booms associated with Falcon 9 boost-backs and landings.

    Observed reactions of pinnipeds at the NCI and at VAFB to sonic booms have ranged from no response to heads-up alerts, from startle responses to some movements on land, and from some movements into the water to occasional stampedes (especially involving California sea lions on the NCI). We therefore assume sonic booms generated during the return flight of the Falcon 9 First Stage may elicit an alerting or other short-term behavioral reaction, including flushing into the water if hauled out.

    Data from launch monitoring by the USAF has shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated with the level of the sonic boom. Low energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf have resulted in little to no behavioral responses, including head raising and briefly alerting but returning to normal behavior shortly after the stimulus (Table 4). More powerful sonic booms have resulted in pinnipeds flushing from haulouts. No pinniped mortalities have been associated with sonic booms. No sustained decreases in numbers of animals observed at haulouts have been observed after the stimulus. Table 4 presents a summary of monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999 to 2014. These data show that reactions to sonic booms tend to be insignificant below 1.0 psf and that, even above 1.0 psf, only a portion of the animals present have reacted to the sonic boom. Time-lapse video photography during four launch events revealed that harbor seals that reacted to the rocket launch noise but did not leave the haul-out were all adults.

    Data from previous monitoring also suggests that for those pinnipeds that flush from haulouts in response to sonic booms, the amount of time it takes for those animals to begin returning to the haulout site, and for numbers of animals to return to pre-launch levels, is correlated with sonic boom sound levels. Pinnipeds may begin to return to the haulout site within 2-55 minutes of the launch disturbance, and the haulout site usually returned to pre-launch levels within 45-120 minutes.

    Monitoring data has consistently shown that reactions among pinnipeds vary between species, with harbor seals and California sea lions tending to be more sensitive to disturbance than northern elephant seals and northern fur seals (Table 4). Because Steller sea lions and Guadalupe fur seals occur in the project area relatively infrequently, no data has been recorded on their reactions to sonic booms. At VAFB, harbor seals generally alert to nearby launch noises, with some or all of the animals going into the water. Usually the animals haul out again from within minutes to two hours or so of the launch, provided rising tides or breakers have not submerged the haul-out sites. Post-launch surveys often indicate as many or more animals hauled out than were present at the time of the launch, unless rising tides, breakers or other disturbances are involved (SAIC 2012). When launches occurred during high tides at VAFB, no impacts have been recorded because virtually all haulout sites were submerged.

    At the Channel Islands, California sea lions have been observed to react strongly to sonic booms relative to other species present. California sea lion pups have sometimes reacted more than adults, either because they are more easily frightened or because their hearing is more acute. Harbor seals also generally appear to be more sensitive to sonic booms than most other pinnipeds, often startling and fleeing into the water. Northern fur seals generally show little or no reaction. Northern elephant seals generally exhibit no reaction at all, except perhaps a heads-up response or some stirring, especially if sea lions in the same area or mingled with the elephant seals react strongly to the boom. Post-launch monitoring generally reveals a return to normal patterns within minutes up to an hour or two of each launch, regardless of species (SAIC 2012).

    Table 4 summarizes monitoring efforts at San Miguel Island during which acoustic measurements were successfully recorded and during which pinnipeds were observed. During more recent launches, night vision equipment was used. The table shows only monitoring data for launches during which sonic booms were heard and recorded. The table shows that little or no reaction from the four species usually occurs when overpressures are below 1.0 psf. In general, as described above, elephant seals do not react unless other animals around them react strongly or if the sonic boom is extremely loud, and northern fur seals seem to react similarly. Not enough data exist to draw conclusions about harbor seals at the NCI, but considering their reactions to launch noise at VAFB, it is likely that they are also sensitive to sonic booms (SAIC 2012).

    Table 4—Observed Pinniped Responses to Sonic Booms at San Miguel Island Launch event Sonic boom level
  • (psf)
  • Monitoring
  • location
  • Species and associated reactions
    Athena II (April 27, 1999) 1.0 Adams Cove California sea lion—866 alerted; 232 (27%) flushed into water.
  • Northern elephant seal—alerted but did not flush.
  • Northern fur seal—alerted but did not flush.
  • Athena II (September 24, 1999) 0.95 Point Bennett California sea lion—12 of 600 (2%) flushed into water.
  • Northern elephant seal—alerted but did not flush.
  • Northern fur seal—alerted but did not flush.
  • Delta II 20 (November 20, 2000) 0.4 Point Bennett California sea lion—60 pups flushed into water; no reaction from focal group.
  • Northern elephant seal—no reaction.
  • Atlas II (September 8, 2001) 0.75 Cardwell Point California sea lion (Group 1)—no reaction (1,200 animals).
  • California sea lion (Group 2)—no reaction (247 animals).
  • Northern elephant seal—no reaction.
  • Harbor seal—2 of 4 flushed into water.
  • Delta II (February 11, 2002) 0.64 Point Bennett California sea lion and northern fur seal—no reaction among 485 animals in 3 groups.
  • Northern elephant seal—no reaction among 424 animals in 2 groups.
  • Atlas II (December 2, 2003) 0.88 Point Bennett California sea lion—approximately 40% alerted; several flushed to water (number unknown—night launch).
  • Northern elephant seal—no reaction.
  • Delta II (July 15, 2004) 1.34 Adams Cove California sea lion—10% alerted (number unknown—night launch). Atlas V (March 13, 2008) 1.24 Cardwell Point Northern elephant seal—no reaction (109 pups). Delta II (May 5, 2009) 0.76 West of Judith Rock California sea lion—no reaction (784 animals). Atlas V (April 14, 2011) 1.01 Cuyler Harbor Northern elephant seal—no reaction (445 animals). Atlas V (September 13, 2012) 2.10 Cardwell Point California sea lion—no reaction (460 animals).
  • Northern elephant seal—no reaction (68 animals).
  • Harbor seal—20 of 36 (56%) flushed into water.
  • Atlas V (April 3, 2014) 0.74 Cardwell Point Harbor seal—1 of ~25 flushed into water; no reaction from others. Atlas V (December 12, 2014) 1.16 Point Bennett Calif. sea lion—5 of ~225 alerted; none flushed.

    As described above, data from launch monitoring by the USAF on the NCI and at VAFB have shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated to the level of the sonic boom. Low energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf) have typically resulted in little to no behavioral responses, including head raising and briefly alerting but returning to normal behavior shortly after the stimulus. More powerful sonic booms have flushed animals from haulouts (but not resulted in any mortality or sustained decreased in numbers after the stimulus). Monitoring data from the NCI and VAFB from 1999 to 2014 show that reactions to sonic booms tend to be insignificant below 1.0 psf and that, even above 1.0 psf, only a portion of the animals present react to the sonic boom (Table 4). Therefore, for the purposes of estimating the extent of take that is likely to occur as a result of the planned activities, we assume that Level B harassment occurs when a pinniped (on land) is exposed to a sonic boom at or above 1.0 psf. Therefore, the number of expected takes by Level B harassment is based on estimates of the numbers of animals that would be within the areas exposed to sonic booms at levels at or above 1.0 psf.

    Ensonified Area

    As described above, modeling was performed to estimate overpressure levels that would be created during sonic booms that occur during the return flight of the Falcon 9 First Stage. The predicted acoustic footprint of the sonic boom was computed using the computer program PCBoom (Plotkin and Grandi 2002; Page et al. 2010). As described above, the highest sound generated by a sonic boom would generally be focused on the area where the Falcon 9 ultimately lands. Based on model results, a boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce a sonic boom with overpressures as high as 8.5 psf at SLC-4W, which would attenuate to levels below 1.0 psf at approximately 15.90 mi. (25.59 km) from the landing area (Figure 2-2 in the IHA application). This estimate is based, in part, on actual observations from Falcon 9 boost-back and landing activities at Cape Canaveral, Florida. A boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce a sonic boom with overpressures up to 3.1 psf on the NCI, based on model results.

    During a contingency barge landing event, sonic boom overpressure would be directed at the ocean surface while the first-stage booster is supersonic. Model results indicate that sonic booms would not exceed 1.0 psf on any part of the NCI during a boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at the contingency landing location at least 27 nm (50 km) offshore (Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 in the IHA application). Additionally, First Stage boost-backs and landings within the Iridium Landing Area would not likely produce measurable overpressures at any land surface (Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9 in the IHA application). Therefore, take of marine mammals is not expected to occur as a result of boost-back and landing activities at the contingency landing location at least 27 nm (50 km) offshore, nor within the Iridium Landing Area. Estimated takes are therefore based on the possibility of boost-back and landing activities occurring at SLC-4W.

    Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. Data collected from marine mammal surveys, including monthly marine mammal surveys conducted by the USAF at VAFB as well as data collected by NMFS, represent the best available information on the occurrence of the six pinniped species expected to occur in the project area. The quality and amount of information available on pinnipeds in the project area varies depending on species; some species are surveyed regularly at VAFB and the NCI (e.g., California sea lion), while other species are surveyed less frequently (e.g., northern fur seals and Guadalupe fur seals). However, the best available data was used to estimate take numbers. Take estimates for all species are shown in Table 6.

    Harbor Seal—Pacific harbor seals are the most common marine mammal inhabiting VAFB, congregating on several rocky haulout sites along the VAFB coastline. They also haul out, breed, and pup in isolated beaches and coves throughout the coasts of the NCI. Harbor seals may be exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf on the mainland and the NCI. Take of harbor seals at VAFB was estimated based on the maximum count totals from monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites from 2013-2016 (ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc., 2014, 2015, 2016; VAFB, unpubl. data). Take of harbor seals at the NCI and at Point Conception was estimated based on the maximum count totals from aerial survey data collected from 2002 to 2012 by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) (Lowry et al., 2017).

    California sea lion— California sea lions are common offshore of VAFB and haul out on rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB, though pupping rarely occurs on the VAFB coastline. They haul out in large numbers on the NCI and rookeries exist on San Miguel and Santa Cruz islands. California sea lions may be exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf on the mainland and the NCI. Take of California sea lions at VAFB was estimated based on the maximum count totals from monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites from 2013-2016 (ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc., 2014, 2015, 2016; VAFB, unpubl. data). Take of California sea lions at the NCI was estimated based on the maximum count totals from aerial survey data collected from 2002 to 2012 by the SWFSC (Lowry et al., 2017). We note that in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (82 FR 49332; October 25, 2017) we estimated takes of California sea lions on Santa Cruz Island (811 takes of California sea lions were estimated per boost-back and landing activity). However, since the notice of the proposed IHA was published, we have reviewed the sonic boom models presented in the IHA application and determined that a sonic boom of 1.0 psf or above is not expected to impact Santa Cruz Island, and, therefore, no takes of marine mammals on Santa Cruz Island are expected to occur as a result of the specified activities. Therefore we do not authorize any takes of California sea lions on Santa Cruz Island in this IHA.

    Steller Sea Lion—Steller sea lions occur in small numbers at VAFB and on San Miguel Island. They have not been observed on the Channel Islands other than at San Miguel Island and they do not currently have rookeries at VAFB or the NCI. Steller sea lions may be exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf on the mainland and the NCI. Take of Steller sea lions at VAFB was estimated based on the largest count totals from monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites from 2013-2016 (ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc., 2014, 2015, 2016; VAFB, unpubl. data). Steller sea lions haul out in very small numbers on the NCI, and comprehensive survey data for Steller sea lions in the NCI is not available. Take of Steller sea lions at the NCI was estimated based on subject matter expert input suggesting that as many as four Steller sea lions have been observed on San Miguel Island at a time (pers. comm., S. Melin, NMFS Marine Mammal Laboratory (MML), to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb 11, 2016).

    Northern elephant seal—Northern elephant seals haul out sporadically on rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB and at Point Conception and have rookeries on San Miguel Island and Santa Rosa Island and at one location at VAFB. Northern elephant seals may be exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf on the mainland and the NCI. Take of northern elephant seals at VAFB was estimated based on the largest count totals from monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites from 2013-2016 (ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc., 2014, 2015, 2016; VAFB, unpubl. data). Take of northern elephant seals at the NCI and at Point Conception was estimated based on the maximum count totals from aerial survey data collected from 2002 to 2012 by the NMFS SWFSC (Lowry et al., 2017).

    Northern fur seal—Northern fur seals have rookeries on San Miguel Island, the only island in the NCI on which they have been observed. No haulouts or rookeries exist for northern fur seals on the mainland coast, including VAFB, thus they may be exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf at the NCI but not on the mainland. Comprehensive survey data for northern fur seals in the project area is not available. Estimated take of northern fur seals was based on subject matter expert input which suggested a maximum of approximately 6,000-8,000 northern fur seals may be present on San Miguel Island at the height of breeding/pupping season (early July). After the height of the breeding/pupping season, numbers fluctuate but decrease as females go on foraging trips and males begin to migrate in late July/August. Numbers continue to decrease until November when most of the population is absent from the island until the following breeding/pupping period (starting the following June) (pers. comm., T. Orr, NMFS NMML, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR, February 27, 2016). It was therefore conservatively estimated that numbers peak at 8,000 animals hauled out at any given time in July and decrease to a minimum of 2,000 animals hauled out at any given time in the winter, then increase again until the following July. This results in an average estimate of 5,000 northern fur seals hauled out at San Miguel Island at any given time over the course of the entire year.

    Guadalupe fur seal—There are estimated to be approximately 20-25 individual Guadalupe fur seals that have fidelity to San Miguel Island (pers. comm. S. Mellin, NMFS NMML, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR, February 11, 2016). No haulouts or rookeries exist for Guadalupe fur seals on the mainland coast, including VAFB, thus they may be exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf at the NCI but not on the mainland. Comprehensive survey data on Guadalupe fur seals in the project area is not readily available. Estimated take of Guadalupe fur seals was based on the maximum number of Guadalupe fur seals observed at any one time on San Miguel Island (13) (pers. comm., J. LaBonte, ManTech SRS Technologies Inc., to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb. 29, 2016); it was therefore conservatively assumed that 13 Guadalupe fur seals may be hauled out at San Miguel Island at any given time.

    Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

    NMFS currently uses a three-tiered scale to determine whether the response of a pinniped on land to acoustic or visual stimuli is considered an alert, a movement, or a flush. NMFS considers the behaviors that meet the definitions of both movements and flushes to qualify as behavioral harassment. Thus a pinniped on land is considered by NMFS to have been behaviorally harassed if it moves greater than two times its body length, or if the animal is already moving and changes direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushes from land into the water. Animals that become alert without such movements are not considered harassed. See Table 5 for a summary of the pinniped disturbance scale.

    Table 5—Levels of Pinniped Behavioral Disturbance on Land Level Type of
  • response
  • Definition Classified as
  • behavioral
  • harassment
  • by NMFS
  • 1 Alert Head orientation or brief movement in response to disturbance, which may include turning head towards the disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped position, changing from a lying to a sitting position, or brief movement of less than twice the animal's body length No. 2 Movement Movements in response to the source of disturbance, ranging from short withdrawals at least twice the animal's body length to longer retreats over the beach, or if already moving a change of direction of greater than 90 degrees Yes. 3 Flush All retreats (flushes) to the water Yes.

    As described above, the likelihood of pinnipeds exhibiting responses to sonic booms that would be considered behavioral harassment (based on the levels of pinniped disturbance as shown in Table 5) is dependent on both the species and on the intensity of the sonic boom. Data from rocket launch monitoring by the USAF at VAFB and the NCI show that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated to the level of the sonic boom, with low energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf) typically resulting in little to no behavioral responses, and higher energy sonic booms resulting in responses ranging from no response to heads-up alerts, startle responses, some movements on land, and some movements into the water (flushing). Based on model results, a boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce a sonic boom with greater intensity at VAFB (overpressures potentially as high as 8.5 psf) than at the NCI (overpressures potentially as high as 3.1 psf). Responses of pinnipeds to sonic booms are also highly dependent on species, with harbor seals, California sea lions and Steller sea lions generally displaying greater sensitivity to sonic booms than northern elephant seals and northern fur seals (Table 4). We are not aware of any data on Guadalupe fur seal responses to sonic booms, but we assume responses by Guadalupe fur seal responses to be similar to those observed in northern fur seals as the two species are physiologically and behaviorally very similar.

    Take estimates were calculated by overlaying the modeled acoustic footprints of sonic booms from boost-back and landing events at SLC-4W with known pinniped haulouts on the mainland (including those at VAFB) and the NCI to determine the pinniped haulouts that would potentially be affected by sonic booms with overpressures of 1.0 psf and above. Only haulouts along northeastern San Miguel Island and northern and northwestern Santa Rosa Island would be expected to experience overpressures greater than 1.0 psf during a boost-back and landing at SLC-4W (Figures 2-3, 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6 in the IHA application). Take estimates also account for the likely intensity of the sonic boom as well as the relative sensitivity of the marine mammal species present, based on monitoring data as described above.

    A boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W that results in a sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at VAFB was conservatively estimated to result in behavioral harassment of 100 percent of all species hauled out at or near VAFB and Point Conception (Table 6). A boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W that results in a sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at the NCI was estimated to result in the behavioral harassment of 100 percent of California sea lions, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions that are hauled out at the NCI and of five percent of northern elephant seals, northern fur seals, and Guadalupe fur seals that are hauled out at the NCI. The five percent adjustment in the take estimates for these species at the NCI is also considered conservative, as launch monitoring data shows that elephant seals and fur seals sometimes alert to sonic booms but have never been observed flushing to the water or responding in a manner that would be classified as behavioral harassment even when sonic booms were measured at >1.0 psf (see Table 4 for a summary of launch monitoring data).

    The take calculations presented in Table 6 are based on the best available information on marine mammal populations in the project location and responses among marine mammals to the stimuli associated with the planned activities.

    Table 6—Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals, and Percentage of Marine Mammal Populations, Potentially Taken as a Result of the Planned Activities Species Geographic location Estimated number of level B
  • harassment
  • exposures
  • per event,
  • by location
  • Estimated combined number of level B
  • harassment
  • exposures
  • per event
  • Total number of takes by level B
  • harassment
  • authorized 1
  • Takes by level B harassment authorized as a percentage of population
    Pacific Harbor Seal 2 VAFB 366 1,384 16,608 4.4 Pt. Conception 516 San Miguel Island 310 Santa Rosa Island 192 Santa Cruz Island 0 California Sea Lion VAFB 416 3,750 45,000 15.2 Pt. Conception N/A San Miguel Island 2,134 Santa Rosa Island 1,200 Santa Cruz Island 0 Northern Elephant Seal VAFB 190 227 2,724 1.5 Pt. Conception 11 San Miguel Island 3 18 Santa Rosa Island 3 8 Santa Cruz Island 0 Steller Sea Lion VAFB 16 20 240 0.3 Pt. Conception N/A San Miguel Island 4 Santa Rosa Island N/A Santa Cruz Island N/A Northern Fur Seal VAFB N/A 250 3,000 21.4 Pt. Conception N/A San Miguel Island  3 250 Santa Rosa Island N/A Santa Cruz Island N/A Guadalupe Fur Seal VAFB N/A 1 12 0.1 Pt. Conception N/A San Miguel Island 3 1 Santa Rosa Island N/A Santa Cruz Island N/A 1 Based on twelve boost-back and landing events. Total number of takes authorized represents incidences of harassment and not necessarily individuals. 2 As the same individual harbor seals are likely to be taken repeatedly over the course of the specified activities, we use the estimate of 1,384 individual animals taken per Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activity for the purposes of estimating the percentage of stock abundance likely to be taken over the course of the entire activity. 3 Number shown reflects five percent of total number of predicted potential exposures, i.e. five percent of animals exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf at these locations are assumed to experience Level B harassment.

    Take estimates are believed to be conservative based on the assumption that all twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities would result in landings at SLC-4W, with no landings occurring at contingency landing locations. However, some or all actual landing events may ultimately occur at the contingency landing locations; as described above, landings at the contingency landing locations would be expected to result in no takes of marine mammals. However, the number of landings at each location is not known in advance, therefore, we assume all landings would occur at SLC-4W. In addition, as described above, it is conservatively assumed that 100 percent of any species of pinniped hauled out on the mainland (VAFB and Point Conception), and 100 percent of harbor seals, California sea lions and Steller sea lions hauled out at the NCI, would be harassed (Level B harassment only) by a Falcon 9 boost-back and landing event at SLC-4W that results in a sonic boom of >1.0 psf. However, it is possible that less than this percentage of hauled out pinnipeds will be behaviorally harassed by a Falcon 9 boost-back and landing at SLC-4W. While there may be some limited behavioral harassment of pinnipeds that occurs at psf levels <1.0, we account for that in the overall conservativeness of the total take number, as described above.

    As described above, in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (82 FR 49332; October 25, 2017) we estimated 811 takes of California sea lions would occur at Santa Cruz Island per boost-back and landing activity; however, since the notice of the proposed IHA was published, we have reviewed the sonic boom models presented in the IHA application and determined that a sonic boom of 1.0 psf or above is not expected to impact Santa Cruz Island, and therefore no takes of marine mammals on Santa Cruz Island are expected to occur as a result of the specified activities. Therefore, we do not authorize any takes of California sea lions on Santa Cruz Island in this IHA. We authorize a total of 45,000 takes of California sea lions in this IHA (a total of 54,732 takes of California sea lions was proposed in the proposed IHA). We also note that in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (82 FR 49332; October 25, 2017) we proposed to authorize a total of 1,384 takes of harbor seals. This was an error, as the number 1,384 represents the estimated number of takes of harbor seals per boost-back and landing activity. We intended to propose to authorize a total of 16,608 takes of harbor seals, which represents the number of estimated takes per boost-back and landing activity (1,384) times the number of activities (12). We therefore authorize a total of 16,608 takes of harbor seals in this IHA. These revisions in the take estimates have not changed any of our determinations.

    Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. For instance, an individual animal may accrue a number of incidences of harassment over the duration of a project, as opposed to each incident of harassment accruing to a new individual. This is especially likely if individual animals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site is stronger than the deterrence presented by the harassing activity.

    Take estimates shown in Table 6 are considered reasonable estimates of the number of instances of marine mammal exposures to sound resulting in Level B harassment that are likely to occur as a result of the planned activities, and not necessarily the number of individual animals exposed.

    Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).

    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully balance two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat—which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of effective implementation, and; (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below.

    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

    Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    SpaceX's IHA application contains descriptions of the mitigation measures proposed to be implemented during the specified activities in order to effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitats.

    It should be noted that it would not be feasible to stop or divert an inbound Falcon 9 First Stage booster. Once the boost-back and landing sequence is underway, there would be no way for SpaceX to change the trajectory of the Falcon 9 First Stage to avoid potential impacts to marine mammals. The proposed mitigation measures include the following:

    • Unless constrained by other factors including human safety or national security concerns, launches would be scheduled to avoid boost-backs and landings during the harbor seal pupping season of March through June, when practicable.

    Based on our evaluation of SpaceX's proposed mitigation measures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

    Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.

    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:

    • Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density);

    • Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);

    • Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;

    • How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;

    • Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and

    • Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

    Monitoring

    SpaceX submitted a monitoring plan as part of their IHA application. SpaceX's proposed marine mammal monitoring plan was created with input from NMFS and was based on similar plans that have been successfully implemented by other action proponents under previous authorizations for similar projects, specifically the USAF's monitoring of rocket launches from VAFB.

    Marine Mammal Monitoring

    SpaceX will determine a monitoring location for each boost-back and landing activity, taking into consideration predictions of the areas likely to receive the greatest sonic boom intensity as well as current haulout locations and the distribution of pinniped species and their behavior. The selection of the monitoring location will also be based on what species (if any) have pups at haulouts and which of those species would be expected to be the most reactive to sonic booms. SpaceX prioritizes the selection of rookery locations if they are expected to be impacted by a sonic boom and prioritizes the most reactive species if there are multiple species that are expected to be hauled out in the modeled sonic boom impact area. For instance, if harbor seals were pupping, SpaceX will prioritize selection of a harbor seal rookery for monitoring because they tend to be the most reactive species to sonic booms. There is also thought given to the geography and wind exposure of the specific beaches that are predicted to be impacted, to avoid inadvertently selecting a portion of a beach that tends to be abandoned by pinnipeds every afternoon as a result high winds. As VAFB is an active military base, the selection of appropriate monitoring locations must also take into account security restrictions and human safety as unexploded ordnance is present in some areas

    Marine mammal monitoring protocols will vary based on modeled sonic boom intensity, the location and the season. As described above, sonic boom modeling will be performed prior to all boost-back and landing activities. Although the same rockets will be used, other parameters specific to each launch will be incorporated into each model. These include direction and trajectory, weight, length, engine thrust, engine plume drag, position versus time from initiating boost-back to additional engine burns, among other aspects. Various weather scenarios will be analyzed from NOAA weather records for the region, then run through the model. Among other factors, these will include the presence or absence of the jet stream, and if present, its direction, altitude and velocity. The type, altitude, and density of clouds will also be considered. From these data, the models will predict peak amplitudes and impact locations.

    As described above, impacts to pinnipeds on the NCI, including pups, have been shown through more than two decades of monitoring reports to be minimal and temporary (MMCG and SAIC 2012). Therefore monitoring requirements at the NCI will be dependent on modeled sonic boom intensity and will be based on the harbor seal pupping season, such that monitoring requirements are greater when pups are expected to be present. When pups are present at haulouts, a lower threshold is reasonable in that a sonic boom could theoretically pose a greater risk of abandonment of pups in the event that mothers flush to the water (we note, however, that pup abandonment has never been documented as a result of sonic booms at the NCI). As pups grow older and are more maneuverable, the risk of pup abandonment diminishes. Thus, at the height of the pupping season (between March 1 and June 30) monitoring is required if sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact one of the NCI. Between July 1 and September 30 monitoring is required if sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.5 psf or greater is likely to impact one of the NCI. Between October 1 and February 28, monitoring is required if sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 2.0 psf or greater is likely to impact one of the NCI.

    Marine mammal monitoring procedures will consist of the following:

    • To conduct monitoring of Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and landing activities, SpaceX will designate qualified (must be able to identify pinnipeds to species, age class, and sex when possible), on-site observers that will be approved in advance by NMFS;

    • If sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB, then acoustic and biological monitoring at VAFB will be implemented;

    • If sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact one of the NCI between March 1 and June 30; a peak overpressure of greater than 1.5 psf is likely to impact one of the NCI between July 1 and September 30, or a peak overpressure of greater than 2.0 psf is likely to impact one of the NCI between October 1 and February 28, then monitoring of haulout sites on the NCI will be implemented. Monitoring will be conducted at the haulout site closest to the area predicted to experience the greatest sonic boom intensity, at both VAFB and the NCI. If multiple haulouts are located within the area expected to experience the greatest sonic boom intensity, selection of monitoring locations will be based on species (i.e., species known to be more reactive to sonic booms will be prioritized) and pup presence (i.e., haulouts with pups will be prioritized);

    • Monitoring will commence at least 72 hours prior to the boost-back and continue until at least 48 hours after the event;

    • Monitors will conduct hourly counts for six hours per day centered around the scheduled launch time to the extent possible. Monitors will be at the monitoring location continuously for six hours per day and will record pinniped counts every hour during this period;

    • If the activity occurs during daylight hours then the six hourly counts will be centered around the scheduled launch time (such that there are observations for 2-3 hours before and after the event). If the activity occurs during nighttime then hourly counts will commence at daybreak and proceed until six hours after daybreak (counts taken during nighttime are not accurate). Monitors would observe pinniped reactions with night vision binoculars for nighttime events;

    • Monitoring will include multiple surveys each day that record the species; number of animals; general behavior; presence of pups; age class; gender; and reaction to noise associated with Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, sonic booms or other natural or human caused disturbances, in addition to recording environmental conditions such as tide, wind speed, air temperature, and swell;

    • If the boost-back and landing is scheduled during daylight hours, time lapse photography or video recording will be used to document the behavior of marine mammals during Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities;

    • For Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities scheduled during harbor seal pupping season (March through June), follow-up surveys will be conducted within two weeks of the boost-back and landing;

    • Newly documented northern elephant seal pupping locations at VAFB will be prioritized for monitoring when landings occur at SLC-4W during northern elephant seal pupping season (January through February) when practicable.

    Acoustic Monitoring

    Acoustic measurements of the sonic boom created during boost-back at the monitoring location will be recorded to determine the overpressure level. Typically this will entail use of a digital audio tape (DAT) recorder and a high quality microphone to monitor the sound environment and measure the sonic boom. This system will be specially tailored for recording the low frequency sound associated with rocket launches and sonic booms. The DAT system will record the launch noise and sonic boom digitally to tape, which will allow for detailed post‐analysis of the frequency content, and the calculation of other acoustic metrics, and will record the ambient noise and sonic boom. The DAT recorder will be placed near the marine mammal monitoring site when practicable.

    Reporting

    SpaceX will report data collected during marine mammal monitoring and acoustic monitoring as described above. The monitoring report will include a description of project related activities, counts of marine mammals by species, sex and age class, a summary of marine mammal species/count data, and a summary of observed marine mammal responses to project-related activities.

    A launch monitoring report will be submitted by SpaceX to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS West Coast Region within 60 days after each Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action. This report will contain information on the date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action, the design of the monitoring program; and results of the monitoring program, including, but not necessarily limited to the following:

    • Numbers of pinnipeds present on the monitored haulout prior to the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery;

    • Numbers of pinnipeds that may have been harassed (based on observations of pinniped responses and the pinniped disturbance scale as shown in Table 4);

    • The length of time pinnipeds remained off the haulout or rookery for pinnipeds estimated to have entered the water as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise;

    • Any other observed behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that were likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, including sonic boom; and

    • Results of acoustic monitoring including comparisons of modeled sonic booms with actual acoustic recordings of sonic booms.

    In addition, a final monitoring report will be submitted by SpaceX to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. A draft of the report will be submitted within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, or, within 45 days of the requested renewal of the IHA (if applicable). A final version of the report will be submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. The report will summarize the information from the 60-day post-activity reports (as described above), including but not necessarily limited to the following:

    • Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery actions;

    • Design of the monitoring program; and

    • Results of the monitoring program, including the information components contained in the 60-day launch reports, as well as any documented cumulative impacts on marine mammals as a result of the activities, such as long term reductions in the number of pinnipeds at haulouts as a result of the activities.

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not authorized by the IHA, such as a Level A harassment, or a take of a marine mammal species other than those authorized, SpaceX would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. The report would include the following information:

    • Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

    • Description of the incident;

    • Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities in the 48 hours preceding the incident;

    • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 48 hours preceding the incident;

    • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    • Fate of the animal(s); and

    • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with SpaceX to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SpaceX would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

    In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), SpaceX would immediately report the incident to mail to: The NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Authorized activities would be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with SpaceX to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), SpaceX would report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and NMFS West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. SpaceX would provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

    This will be the second IHA issued to SpaceX for the specified activity. SpaceX did not perform any Falcon 9 boost-back and landing activities that resulted in return flights to VAFB nor that generated sonic booms that impacted the NCI during the period of validity for the prior IHA issued for the same activity. SpaceX did perform boost-back and landing activities at a contingency landing location located offshore during the period of validity for the prior IHA, however the contingency landing location was located so far offshore that there were no impacts predicted to marine mammals by sonic boom modeling, thus marine mammal monitoring was not required.

    Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).

    To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 1, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal species are expected to be similar. Activities associated with Falcon 9 First Stage recovery, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from airborne sounds of sonic booms. Potential takes could occur if marine mammals are hauled out in areas where a sonic boom above 1.0 psf occurs, which is considered likely given the modeled sonic booms of the planned activities and the occurrence of pinnipeds in the project area. Based on the best available information, including monitoring reports from similar activities that have been authorized by NMFS, behavioral responses will likely be limited to reactions such as alerting to the noise, with some animals possibly moving toward or entering the water, depending on the species and the intensity of the sonic boom. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment would be reduced to the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation measures described above.

    If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed), the response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Flushing of pinnipeds into the water has the potential to result in mother-pup separation, or could result in a stampede, either of which could potentially result in serious injury or mortality and thereby could potentially impact the stock or species. However, based on the best available information, including reports from over 20 years of launch monitoring at VAFB and the NCI, no serious injury or mortality of marine mammals is anticipated as a result of the planned activities.

    Even in the instances of pinnipeds being behaviorally disturbed by sonic booms from rocket launches at VAFB, no evidence has been presented of abnormal behavior, injuries or mortalities, or pup abandonment as a result of sonic booms (SAIC 2013). These findings came as a result of more than two decades of surveys at VAFB and the NCI (MMCG and SAIC, 2012). Post-launch monitoring generally reveals a return to normal behavioral patterns within minutes up to an hour or two of each launch, regardless of species. For instance, a total of eight Delta II and Taurus space vehicle launches occurred from north VAFB, near the Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout sites, from February, 2009 through February, 2014. Of these eight launches, three occurred during the harbor seal pupping season. The continued use by harbor seals of the Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout sites indicates that it is unlikely that these rocket launches (and associated sonic booms) resulted in long-term disturbances of pinnipeds using the haulout sites. San Miguel Island represents the most important pinniped rookery in the lower 48 states, and as such extensive research has been conducted there for decades. From this research, as well as stock assessment reports, it is clear that VAFB operations (including associated sonic booms) have not had any significant impacts on San Miguel Island rookeries and haulouts (SAIC 2012).

    In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors:

    • No injury, serious injury, or mortality are anticipated or authorized;

    • The anticipated incidences of Level B harassment are expected to consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior (i.e., short distance movements and occasional flushing into the water with return to haulouts within at most two days), which are not expected to adversely affect the fitness of any individuals;

    • The activities are expected to result in no long-term changes in the use by pinnipeds of rookeries and haulouts in the project area, based on over 20 years of monitoring data; and

    • The presumed efficacy of planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact.

    In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will be short-term on individual animals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.

    The numbers of authorized takes would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (less than 22 percent for all species and stocks). It is important to note that the number of expected takes does not necessarily represent of the number of individual animals expected to be taken. Our small numbers analysis accounts for this fact. Multiple exposures to Level B harassment can accrue to the same individual animals over the course of an activity that occurs multiple times in the same area (such as SpaceX's planned activity). This is especially likely in the case of species that have limited ranges and that have site fidelity to a location within the project area, as is the case with harbor seals.

    As described above, harbor seals are non-migratory, rarely traveling more than 50 km from their haulout sites. Thus, while the estimated abundance of the California stock of Pacific harbor seals is 30,968 (Carretta et al., 2017), a substantially smaller number of individual harbor seals is expected to occur within the project area. We expect that, because of harbor seals' documented site fidelity to haulout locations at VAFB and the NCI, and because of their limited ranges, the same individuals are likely to be taken repeatedly over the course of the specified activities (maximum of twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recovery actions). Therefore, the number of instances of Level B harassment among harbor seals over the course of the authorization (i.e., the total number of takes shown in Table 6) is expected to accrue to a much smaller number of individuals encompassing a small portion of the overall regional stock. The maximum number of individual of harbor seals expected to be taken by Level B harassment, per Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action, is 1,384. As we believe the same individuals are likely to be taken repeatedly over the course of the specified activities, we use the estimate of 1,384 individual animals taken per Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activity for the purposes of estimating the percentage of the stock abundance likely to be taken over the course of the entire activity.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.

    Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

    Endangered Species Act

    There is one marine mammal species (Guadalupe fur seal) listed under the ESA with confirmed occurrence in the area expected to be impacted by the planned activities. The NMFS West Coast Region has determined that NMFS OPR's issuance of the IHA to SpaceX for the take of marine mammals incidental to Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities is not likely to adversely affect the Guadalupe fur seal. Therefore, formal ESA section 7 consultation on this IHA is not required.

    Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to SpaceX for the potential harassment of small numbers of six marine mammal species incidental to Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities in California and at contingency landing locations offshore, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27761 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF909 Marine Mammals; File No. 21386 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management (Responsible Party: Taqulik Hepa), P.O. Box 69, Barrow, AK 99723, has applied in due form for a permit to collect, receive, import, and export marine mammal parts for scientific research.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before January 25, 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. 21386 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. 21386 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:

    Shasta McClenahan or 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.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    The applicant proposes to collect, receive, import, and export biological samples from pinnipeds and cetaceans annually for scientific research. Pinniped samples may include up to 100 each of bearded (Erignathus barbatus), ringed (Phoca hispida), spotted (P. larga), and ribbon (Histriophoca fasciata) seals. Cetacean samples may include up to 100 beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas), 70 bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), 10 each of minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and gray (Eschrichtius robustus) whales, and 10 harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Receipt, import, and export is requested worldwide. The primary source of samples will be subsistence harvested marine mammals in Alaska, however additional sources of samples may include foreign subsistence harvests, marine mammal strandings in foreign countries, and other foreign and domestic authorized researchers. The requested duration of the permit is 5 years.

    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 20, 2017. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27738 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Mammals and Endangered Species AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    The permits and related documents are available for review 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Lierheimer (File No. 21217 and 21397), Sara Young (File No. 17152-02), and Shasta McClenahan (File No. 20556).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notices were published in the Federal Register on the dates listed below that requests for a permit or permit amendment had been submitted by the below-named applicants. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application and a complete description of the research, go to www.federalregister.gov and search on the permit number provided in the table below.

    File No. RIN Applicant Previous Federal Register notice Permit or amendment issuance date 17152-02 0648-XC136 Point Blue Conservation Science (Responsible Party: Russell Bradley), 3820 Cypress Drive, #11, Petaluma, California 94954 77 FR 48130; August 13, 2012 November 9, 2017. 20556 0648-XF508 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Responsible Party: Jonathan Ambrose) 2070 U.S. Highway 278 Southeast, Social Circle, GA 30025 82 FR 32328; July 13, 2017 November 22, 2017. 21217 0648-XF696 Aaron Roberts, Ph.D., University of North Texas, Biological Sciences, 1155 Union Circle, #310559, Denton, TX 76203 82 FR 43944; September 20, 2017 November 6, 2017. 21397 0648-XF696 Burke Museum, Mammalogy (Responsible Party: Julie Stein), University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195 82 FR 43944; September 20, 2017 November 6, 2017.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permits was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

    Authority:

    The requested permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), as applicable.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27737 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF916 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Habitat Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Four Points by Sheraton, 1 Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880; phone: (781) 245-9300.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Committee will review an updated coral management zone alternative including boundary changes and impacts analysis. They will then recommend final preferred deep-sea coral alternatives to the Council for action during its January 30-February 1 meeting, considering any recommendations from the Habitat Advisory Panel and Plan Development Team. Many aspects of the amendment have already been finalized. The remaining topic for consideration is a coral protection zone or zones along the continental slope, canyons, and seamounts south of Georges Bank. The Committee also plans to discuss next steps stemming from the anticipated January 4 NOAA Fisheries decision on Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2. This will include a discussion of alternatives development for the trailing action to consider clam dredge exemption areas on Georges Bank and Nantucket Shoals, as well as a discussion about how the decision on the amendment might influence 2018 management priorities. They will also discuss any updates related to offshore wind, oil and gas development, and recommend specific projects for the Council to comment on during early 2018. The Committee will hear a progress update on fishing impacts modeling efforts and receive updates on other habitat-related aspects of the Council's fishery management program, as needed, for example ongoing EFH consultation work. Other business may be discussed as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27720 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF913 Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of fee rate adjustment.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues this notice to decrease the fee rate to 4.5 percent for the Pacific Coast Groundfish fee-share fishery to repay the $28,428,718.88 groundfish sub-loan of the $35,662,471 reduction loan that financed the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishing capacity reduction program.

    DATES:

    The Pacific Coast Groundfish program fee rate decrease for groundfish fishery will begin on landings starting on January 1, 2018. The first due date for fee payments with the decreased rate will be February 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send questions about this notice to Paul Marx, Chief, Financial Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Marx, (301) 427-8871.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Background Sections 312(b) through (e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b) through (e)) generally authorizes fishing capacity reduction programs. In particular, section 312(d) authorizes industry fee systems for repaying reduction loans that finance reduction program. Subpart L of 50 CFR part 600 is the framework rule generally implementing section 312(b) through (e). Sections 1111 and 1112 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1279f and 1279g) generally authorizes reduction loans.

    Enacted on February 20, 2003, section 212 of Division B, Title II, of Public Law 108-7 (section 212) specifically authorizes a fishing capacity reduction program for that portion of the limited entry trawl fishery under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan whose permits, excluding those registered to whiting catcher-processors, are endorsed for trawl gear operation (reduction fishery).

    The reduction program's objective was to reduce the number of vessels and permits endorsed for the operation of groundfish trawl gear. The program also involved corollary fishing capacity reduction in the California, Oregon, and Washington fisheries for Dungeness crab and pink shrimp and the sub-loans for these state fisheries have all been repaid.

    NMFS proposed the implementing notice on May 28, 2003 (68 FR 31653) and published the final notice on July 18, 2003 (68 FR 42613). NMFS allocated $28,428,719 reduction loan to the groundfish fishery. The allocation became a reduction loan repayable by fees from the groundfish fishery.

    NMFS published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2005 (70 FR 40225), the final rule to implement the industry fee system for repaying the program's reduction loan. The regulations implementing the program are located at § 600.1012 of 50 CFR part 600, subpart M. On August 8, 2005, NMFS published in the Federal Register (70 FR 45695) a notice of the fee effective date and established September 8, 2005, as the effective date when fee collection and loan repayment began.

    II. Purpose

    The purpose of this notice is to adjust, in accordance with the framework rule's § 600.1013(b), the fee rate for the groundfish fishery. Section 600.1013(b) directs NMFS to recalculate the fee rate that will be reasonably necessary to ensure reduction loan repayment within the specified 30-year term. NMFS has determined that the current fee rate of 5.0 percent for the groundfish fishery is projected to collect more than the annual amortization amount needed for 2018. Therefore, NMFS is decreasing the fee rate to 4.5 percent for all landings beginning January 1, 2018. As of November 24, 2017, the outstanding balance on the groundfish fishery sub-loan was $22,628,122.29.

    Fish buyers may continue to disburse collected fee deposits to NMFS by using www.pay.gov or mail payments to our lockbox. Our lockbox's address is: NOAA Fisheries Pacific Coast Groundfish Buyback, P.O. Box 979059, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Fish buyers must include the fee collection report with the fee payment. Fish buyers using www.pay.gov will find an electronic fee collection report form. Fish buyers not using www.pay.gov may also access the NMFS website for a copy of the fee collection report at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/docs/pacific_coast_groundfish_buyback_loan_fee_collection_report.pdf.

    III. Notice

    The new 4.5 percent fee rate for the groundfish fishery will begin for all landings starting January 1, 2018. From and after this date, all groundfish program fish sellers paying fees fishery shall begin paying groundfish program fees at the revised rate. From and after this date, all fees received by NMFS for the groundfish fishery shall be subject to the new fee rates regardless of the applicable fee month. The first due date for fee payments with the decreased rate will be February 14, 2018.

    Fee collection and submission shall follow previously established methods in § 600.1013 of the framework rule and in the final fee rule published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2005 (70 FR 40225).

    Dated: December 19, 2017. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27769 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF915 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a two and a half day meeting of its Standing, Reef Fish, Coral, and Socioeconomics Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC).

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene on Tuesday, January 9, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday, January 10, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Wednesday, January 11, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. EDT, if needed.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Gulf Council's Conference Room. Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected]; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Day 1—Tuesday, January 9, 2018;9 a.m.-5 p.m. I. Introductions and Adoption of Agenda II. Approval of Minutes a. March 8, 2012 Coral SSC meeting summary b. October 31, 2017 Standing and Reef Fish SSC webinar summary III. Selection of SSC representative at January 29-February 1, 2018 Council meeting in New Orleans, LA Standing and Coral SSC Session IV. Southeast Deep-sea Coral Initiative in the Gulf of Mexico V. Review of the public hearing draft of Coral Amendment 9 VI. Review of Management Strategy Evaluation Developed for the Coral Reef Conservation Program Grant Standing and Socioeconomic SSC Session VII. Grouper and Tilefish 5-year IFQ Review a. Safety at sea b. IFQ participants, dealers, and crew surveys Standing and Reef Fish SSC Session VIII. Review of Draft Status Determination Criteria/Optimum Yield Options Paper Day 2—Wednesday, January 10, 2018; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. IX. SEDAR Activities a. SEDAR 62 Gray Triggerfish standard assessment i. Terms of reference ii. Project schedule iii. Assessment workshop appointments X. Spawning Aggregations in the Gulf of Mexico a. RESTORE Act Science Program project on spawning aggregations in the Gulf of Mexico b. Prediction and Verification of Snapper-Grouper Spawning Aggregation Sites on the Offshore Banks of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico XI. Evaluating Robustness of Harvest Control Rules to Future Red Tide Events XII. Further Development of a Stock Assessment Prioritization Spreadsheet XIII. Analysis Related to Draft Generic Amendment—Carry-over Provision and Framework Modifications a. Simulation of the Effect of Carrying Over Unused ACL XIV. Analysis of Red Grouper Indices of Abundance XV. Discussion of an ABC Control Rule for Data-Limited Stocks XVI. Tentative 2018 SSC Meeting Dates XVII. Other Business — Meeting Adjourns—

    You may register for the SSC Meeting: Standing, Reef Fish, Coral, and Socioeconomic on January 9-11, 2018 at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/1902765732356970499.

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's website and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council website (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “SSC meeting-2018-01”.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27719 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Admission To Practice

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    Title: Admission to Practice.

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0012.

    Form Numbers:

    • PTO-158 • PTO-158A • PTO-158R • PTO-158T • PTO-107A • PTO-107R • PTO-107S • PTO/275 • PTO-1209

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently existing collection.

    Number of Respondents: 19,864 responses per year.

    Average Hours per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 3 minutes (0.05 hours) to 7 hours to prepare the appropriate form or documents and submit to the USPTO, depending upon the instrument used.

    Burden Hours: 21,187.83 hours annually.

    Cost Burden: $1,473,587.72.

    Needs and Uses: The information in this collection is used by the OED Director to determine whether the applicant for registration is of good moral character and repute; has the necessary legal, scientific, and technical qualifications; and is otherwise competent to advise and assist applicants in the presentation and prosecution of patent applications.

    The information supplied by an applicant seeking to apply for the examination for registration and/or to request that they be included on the Register of Patent Attorneys and Agents is used by the USPTO to review applicants for the examination and to determine whether an applicant may be added to, or an existing practitioner may remain on, the Register of Patent Attorneys and Agents.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, email: [email protected]

    Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Further information can be obtained by:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0012 copy request” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records and Information Governance Division Director, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before January 25, 2018 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-5167, marked to the attention of Nicholas A. Fraser.

    Marcie Lovett, Records and Information Governance Division Director, OCTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27685 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Army Science Board Plenary Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting and a voting session.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 and the Code of the Federal Regulations, the Department of the Army announces the following committee meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).

    Date(s) of Meeting: January 9-11, 2018.

    Time(s) of Meeting:

    0800-1700, January 9, 2018. 0800-1700, January 10, 2018. 0800-1700, January 11, 2018.

    Place of Meeting: Fort Benning, Georgia, Building 70, Room 1020.

    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for ASB members to collect data and hold discussions as it relates to individual study topics listed below, and to review, deliberate, and vote on the findings and recommendations presented for the study entitled: “The Future of Telemetry.”

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first to arrive basis.

    Because the meeting of the Subcommittee will be held in a Federal Government facility, security screening is required. A photo ID is required to enter the facility. To enter the facility, visitors must follow the procedures at http://www.benning.army.mil/GateInfo/htrp.html. Please note that security and gate guards have the right to inspect vehicles and persons seeking to enter and exit the installation. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Mr. Paul Woodward, the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Army Science Board. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the Designated Federal Official at the address detailed below, at any point; however, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Army Science Board. The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submissions with the Army Science Board Chairperson, and ensure they are provided to members of the Army Science Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information please contact The Army Science Board, Designated Federal Officer, 2530 Crystal Drive, Suite 7098, Arlington, VA 22202; Ms. Heather Ierardi at [email protected] or (703) 545-8652 or Mr. Paul Woodward at [email protected] or (703) 695-8344.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. § 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102-3. 140 through 160.

    Proposed Agenda: The Army Science Board will meet on January 9-11, 2018 at Fort Benning, Building 70, Room 1020. Purpose of the meeting on each day is to allow each study: (1) Man, Unmanned Teaming; (2) Independent Assessment of the Army's Science and Technology Portfolio Realignment; (3) Multi-Domain Battle 2.0; (4) The Internet of Things: Smart Installations; (5) Independent Assessment of the Army's Next Generation Ground Combat Vehicles Investment Strategy; and (6) Improving the Army's Software Development and Sustainability Strategy, to collect data and hold discussions as it relates to each individual study. The voting session on the study entitled: “The Future of Telemetry” will be conducted on Wednesday, January 10, 2017 at 1400-1500.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27726 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel (SNAP) and Subcommittee Naval Research Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel (SNAP) and subcommittee Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) will meet to discuss materials in support of two studies: “Use and Acquisition of Unmanned Systems in the Department of the Navy” and “Improving Governance in the Department of the Navy.” These sessions will be open to the public, with exception to any specific deliberations which may include the review of classified material.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, January 8, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Pentagon, Conference Center, Room B5.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Custer, Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Navy for Policy, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350, [email protected], 703-693-3403.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Public access is limited due to Pentagon security requirements. Members of the public wishing to attend this event must enter through the Pentagon Visitors' Center adjacent to the Pentagon's Metro Station Entrance. All Pentagon visitors must present two forms of valid government-issued photo identification. All visitors and belongings are required to go through security screening. All belongings are required to pass through an x-ray machine. With the exception of Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC) holders, Pentagon visitors are required to have a sponsor/escort for access into the Pentagon and must be escorted at all times. Members wishing to attend this meeting must have completed all security procedures no later than 09:15 p.m. to receive a visitor badge and depart the waiting area with their sponsor/escort. Guests requiring escort will be escorted directly to the meeting room and access will be limited to areas related to meeting activities. Members of the public shall remain with designated escorts at all times while on the Pentagon reservation. Upon completion of the period of meeting open to the public, guests will be escorted to the building exit. Members of the public with questions regarding visitor access to the Pentagon may call 703-693-3953.

    To request a sponsor and escort for the open session of this meeting, at least 5 days in advance of the meeting, email [email protected] and [email protected] or call 703-693-3403. In the subject line, please enter “Request a sponsor and escort for the Jan 8 SNAP/NRAC open session” and indicate in the body that you “will be attending the open session of the Advisory Panel meeting on January 8, 2018.” Include your name and mobile phone number. Individuals or groups may submit written statements for consideration by the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel at any time or in response to the agenda of a scheduled meeting. All correspondence must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) in care of the address below. If the written statement is in response to the agenda of this meeting, to be considered, must be received at least five days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the Chair of the Secretary of the Navy Panel. The DFO will ensure submissions are provided to Panel members prior to the meeting subject to this notice.

    To contact the DFO, write to: Designated Federal Officer, Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Navy for Policy, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350.

    Dated: December 18, 2017. E.K. Baldini, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27760 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0161] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Main Study Recruitment and Field Test AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 25, 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-0161. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 216-34, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela at 202-245-7377.

    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: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Main Study Recruitment and Field Test.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0695.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 40,666.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,974.

    Abstract: The Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is an international assessment of fourth and eighth grade students' achievement in mathematics and science. Since its inception in 1995, TIMSS has continued to assess students every 4 years. The United States will participate in TIMSS 2019 to continue to monitor the progress of its students compared to that of other nations and to provide data on factors that may influence student achievement. New in 2019, TIMSS will be a technology-based assessment conducted in an electronic format. TIMSS is designed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), and is conducted in the U.S. by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). In preparation for the TIMSS 2019 main study, in April-May 2017, U.S. participated in a pilot study to assist in the development of eTIMSS and, in March through April 2018, U.S. will participate in a field test to evaluate new assessment items and background questions. The TIMSS 2019 Main Study data collection will take place from April through May 2019, with recruitment beginning in spring 2018. This request is to conduct the TIMSS 2019 field test and to begin recruitment of schools, teachers, and students for the main study. In November 2017, NCES will submit a request for the TIMSS 2019 Main Study data collection.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27747 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, January 17, 2018, 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Beatty Community Center, 100 A Avenue South, Beatty, Nevada 89003.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 232 Energy Way, M/S 167, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630-0522; Fax (702) 295-2025 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda:

    1. Committee Update for Community Interests Analysis—Work Plan Item #7 2. Briefing and Recommendation Development for Path Forward for Closed Environmental Restoration Sites at the Tonopah Test Range—Work Plan Item #1

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments can do so during the 15 minutes allotted for public comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at the address listed above or at the following website: http://www.nnss.gov/NSSAB/pages/MM_FY18.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on December 20, 2017. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27754 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth AGENCY:

    Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, January 11, 2018, 6:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3737, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda:

    • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda • Approval of November 2017 Minutes • Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments • Federal Coordinator's Comments • Liaison's Comments • Presentation • Administrative Issues • Subcommittee Updates • Public Comments • Final Comments from the Board • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM SSAB, Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Greg Simonton at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Greg Simonton at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Greg Simonton at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on December 20, 2017. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27756 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, January 24, 2018, 1:00 p.m.-5:15 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ohkay Conference Center, Highway 68, 1 Mile North of Española, Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico 87566.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda • Call to Order • Welcome and Introductions • Approval of Agenda and Meeting Minutes of November 15, 2017 • Old Business ○ Report from Chair ○ Other Items • New Business • Updates from EM Los Alamos Field Office • Los Alamos County Update on Chromium Plume • Break • EM Presentation • Public Comment Period • Updates from New Mexico Environment Department • Update from Co-Deputy Designated Federal Officer and Executive Director • Wrap-Up Comments from NNMCAB Members • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Northern New Mexico, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the internet at: https://energy.gov/em/nnmcab/meeting-materials.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on December 20, 2017. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-27755 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC18-2-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-725y), Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the information collection FERC-725Y, Mandatory Reliability Standards (Personnel Performance, Training, and Qualifications), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments in consideration of the collection of information are due February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Docket No. IC18-2-000 by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-725Y, Mandatory Reliability Standard (Personnel Performance, Training, and Qualifications).

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0279.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725Y information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The FERC-725Y information collection is intended to help ensure the safe and reliable operation of the interconnected grid through the retention of suitably trained and qualified personnel in positions that can impact the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. The Commission uses the FERC-725Y to implement the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. FERC-725Y will ensure that personnel performing or supporting real-time operations on the Bulk Electric System (BES) are trained using a systematic approach. The Reliability Standard requires entities to maintain records subject to review by the Commission and NERC to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standard.

    The Reliability Standard requires entities to maintain records subject to review by the Commission and NERC to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standard. This Reliability Standard contains of six Requirements:

    • R1 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and transmission operators to develop and implement a training program for system operators • R2 requires transmission owners to develop and implement a training program for system operators • R3 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators and transmission owners to verify the capabilities of their identified personnel • R4 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators and transmission owners to provide those personnel with emergency operations training using simulation technology • R5 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and transmission operators to develop and implement training for their operations support personnel • R6 requires applicable generator operators to develop and implement training for certain of their dispatch personnel at a centrally located dispatch center.

    Type of Respondents: Reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators, transmission owners, and generator owners.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:  1 Our estimate below regarding the number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of September 29, 2017. According to the NERC compliance registry, NERC has registered 176 transmission operators, 331 transmission owners and 890 generator operators.

    1 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    The Commission estimates the additional annual reporting burden and cost as follows:

    FERC-725Y in Docket No. IC18-2-000 Number and type
  • of respondents 2
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average
  • burden &
  • cost per
  • response 3
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • & total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (